Quinby v. WestLB AG, 2007 WL 38230 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2007)

In this opinion, the court modified its September 5, 2006 order (summarized here) which shifted to the plaintiff 30 percent of the costs of producing the emails of one witness (Barron) restored from backup tapes. After that prior order was entered, defendant submitted an affidavit from its vendor stating that 14 backup tapes had been restored in order to recover Barron’s emails, and that the total cost was $9,187.50. Plaintiff submitted a letter and exhibits in response, pointing out that the 14 tapes also contained the emails of other custodians whose emails were ordered produced and the tapes would, therefore, have had to have been restored in any event. Plaintiff argued that she should be responsible for only 30 percent of the share allocable to Barron’s emails.

The court agreed, and found it unfair to shift a portion of the entire cost since the backup tapes would have had to have been restored even if Barron’s emails had not been ordered produced. The court set out its formula for calculating plaintiff’s share of the cost, which amounted to $448, and ordered plaintiff to remit that amount to defendant within ten days.

Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 239 F.R.D. 81 (D.N.J. 2006)

In this lengthy opinion, the court ruled upon plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default based upon defendants’ discovery misconduct and other discovery-related motions. Although it reserved judgment on whether a default should be entered, the court found that a variety of severe sanctions were appropriate given defendants’ “systemic and shocking” discovery abuses. The sanctions included: (1) deeming certain facts as admitted by defendant for all purposes in the litigation, including equitable relief; (2) precluding defendant’s use of documents not produced in discovery; (3) striking privilege assertions as to certain documents; (4) imposing monetary sanctions in an amount to be determined after the court considered defendant’s financial situation; and (5) appointing a discovery monitor at defendants’ expense to review defendants’ compliance with the court’s discovery orders. The court explained:
Read More

Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 2006 WL 3851151 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2006)

In this trademark infringement case, plaintiff sought an array of preclusive sanctions against defendant for alleged discovery misconduct. Specifically, plaintiff argued that defendant did not make complete or timely searches for certain categories of documents and e-mails. It also contended that defendant did not give adequate instructions to its employees to preserve documents and that it improperly deleted e-mails from a customer relations chat room that might have been a source of pertinent information. Read More

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2006 WL 3803152 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 14, 2006)

In this case involving UCC claims stemming from defendant’s internet-based check service, defendant disputed that it did sufficient business with Ohio residents to subject it to the court’s jurisdiction. The court allowed limited discovery on the issue, and plaintiff propounded a number of interrogatories concerning any business contacts between the defendant and the state of Ohio or Ohio residents. Defendant replied “unknown” to the interrogatories, and stated that its customers were not required to provide address information; however, it failed to state whether any customers, despite not being required to provide their addresses’ or their payees’ addresses, had actually done so, or whether customer or payee addresses were available to defendant in its customer database.
Read More

Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Davis, Slip Copy, 2006 WL 3837518 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2006)

The facts underlying the lawsuit are as follows. In June 2006, Davis, a long-time employee of plaintiff Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, resigned to join GeoSouthern Energy Corporation. It was undisputed that just before leaving Anadarko in July 2006, Davis downloaded confidential or proprietary information from Anadarko’s computers. When he joined GeoSouthern, Davis transferred that information to GeoSouthern’s computers. Anadarko sued Davis and GeoSouthern in September 2006. Davis admitted that he misappropriated confidential or proprietary information, but denied any significant use of it and denied any use of it to Anadarko’s detriment. Read More

WIREdata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex, 729 N.W.2d 757 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007)

In this open records case, WIREdata, Inc. had filed open records requests with three municipalities seeking property assessment records in the format created and maintained by the municipalities’ independent contractor assessors in a computer database.  The court held that the open records law allowed WIREdata the opportunity to access that database in order to examine and copy the property assessment records, and that the municipalities committed open records law violations when they denied WIREdata such access and instead provided it with a “PDF,” or portable document file.
Read More

May v. Pilot Travel Centers LLC, 2006 WL 3827511 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 28, 2006)

In this wrongful termination case, plaintiff moved for sanctions on the grounds that defendant had committed spoliation by failing to preserve relevant evidence that it relied on in defending the case and that would potentially have been favorable to plaintiff. Plaintiff also alleged that defendant violated its duty to supplement or correct various discovery disclosures. The court reviewed the various categories of documents and ESI in dispute, and concluded that sanctions were appropriate even though there was no evidence that any actual “spoliation” had occurred.
Read More

Ameriwood Ind., Inc. v. Liberman, 2006 WL 3825291 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 27, 2006)

In this trade secrets case, the plaintiff alleged that defendants – plaintiff’s former employees and their recently formed company – improperly used plaintiff’s computers and confidential information regarding its business, and defendants’ positions of trust and confidence while in plaintiff’s employ to sabotage plaintiff’s business relationships and divert plaintiff’s business to themselves. In discovery, plaintiff sought production of: “All computer or portable or detachable hard drives, or mirror images thereof, used by Liberman, Fridley, or Kleist since May 2005, including but not limited to any computer or portable or detachable hard drives in their homes.” Defendants objected that the request was overbroad, vague, and burdensome and called for irrelevant information. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel addressing this and other discovery requests.

Read More