Catagory:Case Summaries

1
First Niagara Risk Management, Inc. v. Folino, No. 16-1779 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2016).
2
Blodgett v. Siemens Industry, Inc. (E.D. N.Y., 2016)
3
A Responding Party Cannot be Forced to Use Technology Assisted Review (Predictive Coding)
4
Reliance on Caselaw Analyzing Prior Version of Rule 26 “Inexplicable” and “Inexcusable,” Sanctions Imposed
5
Emergency Response Specialists, Inc v. CSA Ocean Sciences, Inc N.D. Ala. August 4, 2016 (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION, 2016)
6
Saller v. QVC, Inc. (ED Pa., 2016)
7
Atiles v. Golub Corp., No. 521828 (State of New York Supreme Court, 2016)
8
Xiong vs. Knight Transportation, No. 1:12-CV-01546-RBJ (D. Colo. July 27, 2016).
9
Second Circuit: Warrant may not Compel Production of Emails from Ireland
10
Fulton v. Livingston Financial LLC, No. C15-0574JLR (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2016).

First Niagara Risk Management, Inc. v. Folino, No. 16-1779 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2016).

Key Insight: Responding party’s ability to choose search methods is not above rule of proportionality.

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty Action

Electronic Data Involved: Personal and business electronic devices

Keywords: “search criteria” “access[ability]” “uncovered evidence” “limit[ing] searches” “shielding” “Sedona”

View Case Opinion

A Responding Party Cannot be Forced to Use Technology Assisted Review (Predictive Coding)

Hyles v. New York City, 10 Civ. 3119 (AT)(AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2016)

In this case, the court addressed the question of whether the City could be “forced” to use technology assisted review (predictive coding) to identify discoverable information when the City itself preferred to use keyword searching. “The short answer [was] a decisive ‘NO.’”

Read More

Reliance on Caselaw Analyzing Prior Version of Rule 26 “Inexplicable” and “Inexcusable,” Sanctions Imposed

Fulton v. Livingston Fin., LLC, No. C15-0574JLR, 2016 WL 3976558 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2016)

In this opinion, the court imposed sanctions for counsel’s misrepresentations of law and fact, including his citation to caselaw analyzing outdated standards under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), which was substantially affected by the December 2015 amendments. Calling counsel’s reliance on caselaw applying outdated standards “inexplicable” and “inexcusable” where the “December 1, 2015 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) ‘dramatically changed’ what information is discoverable,” the court ultimately imposed monetary sanctions (payment of Plaintiff’s fees and costs for defending the at-issue motion) and ordered counsel to supply “senior members” of his firm with the “offending brief” with the explanation that “the court is entering sanctions . . . for quoting provisions of the civil rules that are badly out of date, and also making direct misrepresentations to the court.”  Declining to also require the attorney to report the sanction on future pro hac vice applications, the court did order that if a federal court threatened or imposed sanctions on the attorney at any time in the next five years, the attorney must “immediately disclose to that court the sanctions imposed by this court by providing that court with a copy of this order and the offending briefing.”

Read More

Emergency Response Specialists, Inc v. CSA Ocean Sciences, Inc N.D. Ala. August 4, 2016 (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION, 2016)

Key Insight: lost evidence, data preservation

Nature of Case: breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: destroyed electronic records of experts

Keywords: Case dismissal applicable only in extreme circumstances, defensible collection

View Case Opinion

Saller v. QVC, Inc. (ED Pa., 2016)

Key Insight: Discovery sanctions motion.

Nature of Case: Workplace discrimination.

Electronic Data Involved: Employment records including personnel files of supervisors and documents regarding performance of other employees.

Keywords: Failure to preserve, search terms, motion to compel.

View Case Opinion

Atiles v. Golub Corp., No. 521828 (State of New York Supreme Court, 2016)

Key Insight: If a party cannot show that destruction of video footage was intentional, then sanctions can be awarded unless it can be shown that the destroyed evidence would be relevant.

Nature of Case: grocery store slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: surveillance camera footage

Keywords: video surveillance, spoliation, intentional destruction of evidence

View Case Opinion

Xiong vs. Knight Transportation, No. 1:12-CV-01546-RBJ (D. Colo. July 27, 2016).

Key Insight: facebook information discovered after award was not allowed because Defendant could have developed information earlier and failed to do so.

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Social Media

Keywords: post-judgment motion; new evidence; social media

View Case Opinion

Second Circuit: Warrant may not Compel Production of Emails from Ireland

In re a Warrant to Search a Certain E-mail Account Controlled & Maintained by Microsoft Corp., No. 14-2985 (2d Cir. July 14, 2016)

In this case, Microsoft Corporation appealed orders from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denying its motion to quash a warrant issued under § 2703 of the Stored Communications Act and holding Microsoft in contempt for “refusing to execute the Warrant on the government’s behalf.”  The warrant directed Microsoft to “seize and produce the contents of an e-mail account that it maintains for a customer who uses the company’s electronic communications services.” Although Microsoft produced the relevant customer’s non-content information which was stored in the United States, it refused to access and import data that was stored and maintained in Ireland.

Read More

Fulton v. Livingston Financial LLC, No. C15-0574JLR (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2016).

Key Insight: Citation to Rule/caselaw that omits consideration of “proportionality” is reckless and sanctionable.

Nature of Case: Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA) Action

Electronic Data Involved: Medical records

Keywords: “misstate[ment] [of] the law” “outdated caselaw” “recklessly misrepresented” “medical condition”

View Case Opinion

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