Electronic Discovery Law – Page 356 – Legal issues, news and best practices relating to the discovery of electronically stored information.

Mother, LLC. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 2007 WL 2302974 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 7, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: As sanction for plaintiff?s failure to comply with discovery order requiring production of ?all electronically stored information regarding its finances,” court struck plaintiff’s claim for loss of profits and ordered plaintiff to pay reasonable expenses, costs, and attorneys? fees incurred by defendant in bringing motion

Nature of Case: Trade dress infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI regarding plaintiff’s finances

RLI Ins. Co. v. Indian River Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 3112417 (D. Del. Oct. 23, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s untimely motion to re-open discovery and to compel compliance with court?s ?Default Standard for Discovery of Electronic Documents? since plaintiff did not raise or discuss issue of e-discovery during initial conferences nor provide a compelling reason to re-open discovery other than its perceived lack of a significant amount of emails

Nature of Case: Negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Escobar v. City of Houston, 2007 WL 2900581 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Adverse-inference instruction not warranted where there was no showing that relevant electronic communications were destroyed or that destruction occurred in bad faith; officers involved in the shooting were not likely to have used email to communicate about the event in the day after it occurred, and, under HPD’s document retention and destruction policy, electronic communications records were routinely destroyed within ninety days

Nature of Case: Wrongful death action based on shooting death of 14-year-old boy by police officer

Electronic Data Involved: Records of Houston Police Department electronic communications in the 24 hours after victim’s death

APC Filtration, Inc. v. Becker, 2007 WL 3046233 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant traveled 20 miles to dispose of his computer in a construction site dumpster within days of receiving notice of lawsuit, court found that defendant acted in bad faith but that sanction of default judgment was too severe since plaintiff’s claims were not “severely” or “incurably” prejudiced as a result; court instead deemed certain facts conclusively proven and ordered defendant to pay plaintiff?s reasonable attorneys? fees and costs associated with motion and related discovery

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of employment contract

Electronic Data Involved: Computer

Adams Land & Cattle Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2007 WL 4522627 (D. Neb. Dec. 18, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s counsel became aware of mistaken production of privileged email during June deposition but waited until September to contact defense counsel to explain the inadvertent disclosure and request that defendant destroy and agree not to use the email, court applied five-part test and found ?no overriding interest of justice that requires the Court to relieve plaintiff’s counsel of its production errors?

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Am. Fast Freight, Inc. v. Nat’l Consol. & Distrib., Inc., 2007 WL 4269794 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 30, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where accounting information was relevant to plaintiffs’ contention that defendants’ corporate form should be disregarded, court ruled that QuickBooks accounting data file for relevant time period be copied to CD and produced to plaintiffs in that form

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: QuickBooks accounting data file

Muro v. Target Corp., 2007 WL 3254463 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: District court upheld magistrate judge?s ruling that Target’s ?litigation hold? notices were subject to attorney-client privilege and work product protection since notices were communications of legal advice from corporate counsel to corporate employees regarding document preservation; however, court sustained objection to magistrate’s ruling that privilege log was inadequate for failing to separately itemize each individual email quoted in an email string, concluding that Rule 26(b)(5)(A) does not require separate itemization of each individual email quoted in an email string

Nature of Case: Putative class action alleging violations of Truth in Lending Act

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation hold notices; privileged email

Drnek v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 2007 WL 4513203 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: District court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions, since plaintiff offered no specific evidence that any of the destroyed emails contained relevant information

Nature of Case: Claimed violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities and Exchange Acts

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Vennet v. Am. Intercont’l Univ. Online, 2007 WL 4442321 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel on variety of e-discovery topics and ordered defendant to allow plaintiffs? expert reasonable access to (1) phone system and backup system for purpose of recovering inadvertently overwritten phone logs and (2) appropriate personal computers or computer network in order to search for particular documents; plaintiffs further allowed to take Rule 30(b)(6) deposition concerning defendant?s computer network, phone system, and document retention and destruction practices

Nature of Case: Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

Agassi Enters., Inc. v. Target Corp., 2007 WL 4441195 (D. Nev. Dec. 11, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Granting preliminary injunction, court further ordered defendant to “preserve all documents and other evidence (including, but not limited to, electronic documents such as email relating to its use of the AGASSI name . . .” and, within 30 days of the order, to file and serve a report detailing the manner and form in which Target complied with the preliminary injunction

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents, email