Catagory:Case Summaries

1
In Re State Farm Lloyds, Relator, Nos. 15-0903, 15-0905 (Tex. Sup. Ct. May 26, 2017)
2
Iris Mediaworks, Ltd. v. Vasisht (Sup. Ct. N.Y., 2017)
3
First Am. Bankcard, Inc. v. Smart Bus. Tech., Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00638-KDE-JCW (E.D. La. May 24, 2017)
4
Robinson v. Renown Regional Medical Center (D. Nev., 2017)
5
“Discovery can be burdensome even as it is inexpensive.”
6
Omnigen Research v. Wang, No. 6:16-cv-00268-MC, 2017 WL 2260071 (D. Or. May 23, 2017)
7
Kennedy v. Supreme Forest (D.Conn, 2017)
8
Abbott v. Wyoming Cty. Sheriff?s Office, No. 15-CV-531W (W.D.N.Y. May 16, 2017)
9
“Applying TAR to the universe of electronic material before any keyword search reduces [it] is the preferred method.”
10
Taylor v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., d/b/a Rite-Aid, No. 16-00474 (D. Or. May 12, 2017)

First Am. Bankcard, Inc. v. Smart Bus. Tech., Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00638-KDE-JCW (E.D. La. May 24, 2017)

Key Insight: Specific objections are required for proportionality claims

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic data

Keywords: boilerplate, control, former owner and top officers

View Case Opinion

Robinson v. Renown Regional Medical Center (D. Nev., 2017)

Key Insight: Motion for sanctions denied since the court found that the loss had been accidental, so no intent. Plus, much of the info likely never existed.

Nature of Case: workplace discrimination/hostile work environment

Electronic Data Involved: Telephone logs and connected data, electronic logs

Keywords: Spoliation, loss of data, equipment failure, recoverable data, sanctions

View Case Opinion

“Discovery can be burdensome even as it is inexpensive.”

Gordon v. T.G.R. Logistics, Inc., No. 16-cv-00238-NDF, 2017 WL 1947537 (D. Wy. May 10, 2017)

In this personal injury case, Defendant requested production of Plaintiff’s entire “Facebook account history” for her two accounts (and later limited the relevant timeframe of the request to information from three years prior to the accident through the present). In response, Plaintiff produced information that referenced the at-issue auto accident or her injuries and also provided information identified by a set of keywords set forth by Defendant.  She objected to further production based on a lack of relevance, undue burden, and invasion of privacy.  The court granted Defendant’s subsequent motion to compel, but imposed significant limits on the scope of production.

Read More

Omnigen Research v. Wang, No. 6:16-cv-00268-MC, 2017 WL 2260071 (D. Or. May 23, 2017)

Key Insight: Intentional deletion and refusal to produce evidence leads to default judgment

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic data

Keywords: Default judgment, China, termination sanction

View Case Opinion

Kennedy v. Supreme Forest (D.Conn, 2017)

Key Insight: sanctions not appropriate for deletion of original recordings, no alteration of originals

Nature of Case: Termination of employment

Electronic Data Involved: audio recordings, transcripts, photographs

Keywords: deletion of original, termination of employment, Best evidence rule

View Case Opinion

Abbott v. Wyoming Cty. Sheriff?s Office, No. 15-CV-531W (W.D.N.Y. May 16, 2017)

Key Insight: Discovery had been completed in September 2016. In February 2017, at deposition, additional on-going claims were presented. Court specified search terms to use against 3 custodians for the additional time frame.

Nature of Case: American with Disabilities; Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: E-mail

Keywords: Search Terms, Supplemental Production; Additional Discovery

View Case Opinion

“Applying TAR to the universe of electronic material before any keyword search reduces [it] is the preferred method.”

FCA USA LLC v. Cummins, LLC, No. 16-12883 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2017)

In this case, the court was asked to rule on the parties’ dispute regarding “whether the universe of electronic material subject to TAR review should first be culled by the use of search terms.” The court, although expressly reluctant to get involved, concluded that it should not:

Be that as it may, having reviewed the letters and proposed orders together with some technical in-house assistance including a read of The Sedona Conference TAR Case Law Primer, 18 Sedona Con. J. __ (forthcoming 2017), the Court is satisfied that FCA has the better postion [sic]. Applying TAR to the universe of electronic material before any keyword search reduces the universe of electronic material is the preferred method. The TAR results can then be culled by the use of search terms or other methods.

A full copy of the court’s short order is available here.

Taylor v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., d/b/a Rite-Aid, No. 16-00474 (D. Or. May 12, 2017)

Key Insight: Defendant had reviewed video recording twice and did not show area of spill and fall. Deleted recording per their normal 37 day video retention policy. Defendant moved for summary judgment, Plaintiff argued should be sanctioned by not granting order. Judge granted summary judgment.

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Video Recording

Keywords: Summary Judgment; Retention Policy

View Case Opinion

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.