Electronic Discovery Law

Legal issues, news and best practices relating to the discovery of electronically stored information.

1
Flying J Inc. v. TA Operating Corp., 2007 WL 2220581 (D. Utah July 30, 2007)
2
In re Maura, 842 N.Y.S.2d 851 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2007)
3
Glass v. Beer, 2007 WL 1456059 (E.D. Cal. May 17, 2007)
4
Hudson Global Res. Holdings, Inc. v. Hill, 2007 WL 1545678 (W.D. Pa. May 25, 2007)
5
ATM Exchange, Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n, 2007 WL 1674230 (S.D. Ohio June 7, 2007)
6
Potter v. Havlicek, 2007 WL 539534 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 14, 2007)
7
Whitney v. Wurtz, 2007 WL 521231 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2007)
8
Corvello v. New England Gas Co., Inc., 243 F.R.D. 28 (D.R.I. 2007)
9
Lamb v. Maloney, 850 N.Y.S.2d 138 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
10
Digene Corp. v. Third Wave Techs., Inc., 2007 WL 4939048 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 24, 2007)

Flying J Inc. v. TA Operating Corp., 2007 WL 2220581 (D. Utah July 30, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendant objected that requests for production of certain financial data sought to force them to create documents that did not exist, but did not assert that requested data was not readily accessible, and plaintiffs argued that they sought production of already-existing data (whether or not such data was stored in electronic form), court found that requests sought relevant information and ordered defendant ?to produce already-existing data, whether in raw or synthesized form,? responsive to the requests

Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Financial and sales data

In re Maura, 842 N.Y.S.2d 851 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2007)

Key Insight: Court ordered that non-party law firm’s hard drive be imaged, and that law firm (not plaintiff) would be entitled to select computer forensic expert to conduct cloning process; court further ordered parties to confer on details and set basic timeframe for cloning and review of material, and ruled that plaintiff would be responsible for costs associated with search and production

Nature of Case: Proceeding to determine the validity of a right of election

Electronic Data Involved: Law firm computer

Glass v. Beer, 2007 WL 1456059 (E.D. Cal. May 17, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendants submitted evidence under penalty of perjury explaining reasons why they were able to locate only two of the four requested videotapes despite three searches, and defendant submitted no evidence that defendants had tampered with evidence, that the tape was intentionally destroyed, or that defendants were lying, court denied motion to compel and for sanctions

Nature of Case: State prisoner asserted civil rights claims claiming use of excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Videotapes

Hudson Global Res. Holdings, Inc. v. Hill, 2007 WL 1545678 (W.D. Pa. May 25, 2007)

Key Insight: Granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion for TRO/preliminary injunction, court also ordered counsel to confer and suggest within ten days an agreeable method by which plaintiff, through its computer forensics expert or otherwise, may access and permanently delete or retrieve its information from defendant’s portable external hard drive and personal computer which were in court’s custody

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleged claims of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition against former employee

Electronic Data Involved: Business data; laptop and portable hard drive

ATM Exchange, Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n, 2007 WL 1674230 (S.D. Ohio June 7, 2007)

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to provide verified discovery response indicating that it had produced all relevant and responsive documents and/or information collected from imaged hardrive of key player’s computer, and to provide verified discovery response stating whether or not it had an email document retention policy in place during relevant time period

Nature of Case: Negligent misrepresentation and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Potter v. Havlicek, 2007 WL 539534 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 14, 2007)

Key Insight: Although court denied motion for preliminary injunction forbidding defendant from using, disclosing or destroying emails and other ESI described by defendant as evidence he would present if tangentially related divorce case went to trial, court ordered defendant to produce subject emails and other ESI within 10 days

Nature of Case: Alleged violations of Electronic Communications Privacy Act and Stored Communications Act, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress

Electronic Data Involved: Emails and other ESI described by defendant in affidavit in tangentially related divorce case

Whitney v. Wurtz, 2007 WL 521231 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2007)

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiffs to provide a separate disk for each plaintiff’s responses to defendant?s request for production, and instructed (1) that ?electronic documents shall be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business or Plaintiffs shall organize and label the documents to correspond with Veriscape’s requests? and (2) that electronic documents be produced without the use of any compression software and in the format requested by defendant at the hearing

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, termination, and deceit

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents produced on computer disk

Corvello v. New England Gas Co., Inc., 243 F.R.D. 28 (D.R.I. 2007)

Key Insight: Court concluded that any privilege that may have attached to documents inadvertently produced on CD was waived, since non-party?s counsel failed to exercise due care when he produced CD without first reviewing it, failed to immediately accept party?s offer to temporarily halt its document review after he was alerted that some of the documents on CD appeared to be internal communications with counsel, and furnished an inadequate privilege log after two-week delay

Nature of Case: Litigation between gas company and landowners

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged documents inadvertently produced on CD

Lamb v. Maloney, 850 N.Y.S.2d 138 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Key Insight: Trial court did not err in denying without prejudice plaintiff?s motion, based on spoliation of evidence, to strike defendants? answers or preclude defendants? use of office records to support their defenses; however, court did err in not granting alternative relief requested, i.e., compelling additional discovery, including depositions of certain witnesses, production of records, and inspection of computers, since such additional discovery was reasonably calculated to produce relevant and material evidence and defendants failed to demonstrate any prejudice as a result

Nature of Case: Medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Office computer hard drive and information regarding its destruction

Digene Corp. v. Third Wave Techs., Inc., 2007 WL 4939048 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 24, 2007)

Key Insight: Where discovery missteps which resulted in delayed production of notebooks were merely negligent and not reckless or intentional, court imposed penalty of cost-shifting and reimbursement in the amount of $50,000 and declined to impose any of the ?inquisitorial sanctions? demanded by plaintiff; court further ruled that ?no [defense] attorneys will be dragged behind a chariot outside the city’s walls.?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement and antitrust claims

Electronic Data Involved: Scientists’ notebooks that were converted into electronic format

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