Electronic Discovery Law

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

1
Kay S. v. Mark S., 142 P.3d 249 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006)
2
Malletier v. Dooney & Burke, Inc., 2006 WL 2109472 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2006)
3
United States ex rel. Englund v. Los Angeles County, 2006 WL 1490641 (E.D. Cal. May 26, 2006)
4
Bank One, N.A. v. Echo Acceptance Corp., 2006 WL 2564262 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 1, 2006)
5
Patmont Motor Werks, Inc. v. CSK Auto Inc., 2006 WL 2591042 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2006)
6
Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2006 WL 2668843 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 15, 2006)
7
Plasse v. Tyco Elecs. Corp., 448 F. Supp. 2d 302 (D. Mass. 2006)
8
Quinby v. WestLB AG, 245 F.R.D. 94 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
9
Arista Records, LLC v. Tschirhart, 2006 WL 2728927 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2006)
10
Krumwiede v. Brighton Assocs., L.L.C., 2006 WL 2714609 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 20, 2006)

Kay S. v. Mark S., 142 P.3d 249 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006)

Key Insight: Appellate court found there was appearance of impropriety which warranted trial judge’s disqualification; on remand, new judge to consider, among other things, mother’s request for production of hard drive from father’s work computer

Nature of Case: Divorce proceedings

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Malletier v. Dooney & Burke, Inc., 2006 WL 2109472 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2006)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought a fuller production of email communications from the servers of a wide variety of DB personnel, and DB represented that it searched all pertinent email files and had no other responsive emails, court ruled: “Under these circumstances, the only avenue open to [plaintiff] on this matter is to pursue the question of the scope of e-mail use and retention through depositions.”

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

United States ex rel. Englund v. Los Angeles County, 2006 WL 1490641 (E.D. Cal. May 26, 2006)

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to complete a diligent search of all documents subject to its control, including electronic documents, and to produce all documents by certain date; court further ordered defendant to certify, in writing, that it had performed a diligent search, including of its electronic files, to locate documents responsive to plaintiff’s document requests

Nature of Case: False Claim Act

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

Bank One, N.A. v. Echo Acceptance Corp., 2006 WL 2564262 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 1, 2006)

Key Insight: Court ordered that, to the extent the information kept in database was not duplicative of hard copy complaints produced, defendants must produce customer dispute information (including related information dealing with investigations and results) available through defendants’ computer databases dealing with disputes by certain consumers

Nature of Case: Breach of indemnification agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Databases used to manage customer accounts

Patmont Motor Werks, Inc. v. CSK Auto Inc., 2006 WL 2591042 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2006)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s renewed motion for sanctions where plaintiff had failed to satisfy local meet and confer requirement; parties had previously engaged in meet and confer during recess and agreed on search methodology for responsive documents and emails

Nature of Case: Trademark and copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheet; email

Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2006 WL 2668843 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 15, 2006)

Key Insight: Court narrowed subpoena to defendant’s new employer, setting out “tiered discovery” process: plaintiff was to identify at least one project involving files allegedly removed from disputed laptop; new employer would then search for documents and/or files of the type described that were related to that project and produce them; if any of the produced documents and/or files were shown to be relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, then the parties would proceed to the ?second tier? of discovery and plaintiff could then request documents related to other projects; if no responsive documents could be found with respect to the first identified projects, however, plaintiff would be required to make a sufficient showing to the court as to why discovery should proceed further

Nature of Case: Design firm sued former vice president under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary business and technological data

Quinby v. WestLB AG, 245 F.R.D. 94 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

Key Insight: Court applied Zubulake factors and granted in part defendant?s motion to shift costs, holding that defendant was entitled to recover 30 percent of the costs of restoring and searching backup tapes for responsive emails of one former employee, stating: “[I]f a party creates its own burden or expense by converting into an inaccessible format data that it should have reasonably foreseen would be discoverable material at a time when it should have anticipated litigation, then it should not be entitled to shift the costs of restoring and searching the data.”

Nature of Case: Gender discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on backup tapes

Arista Records, LLC v. Tschirhart, 2006 WL 2728927 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2006)

Key Insight: Court entered default judgment as discovery sanction where forensic evidence showed that defendant deliberately used ?wiping? software to permanently remove data from her hard drive and stated: “The sanction in the present case is to deter other defendants in similar cases from attempting to destroy or conceal evidence of their wrongdoing.”

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Krumwiede v. Brighton Assocs., L.L.C., 2006 WL 2714609 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 20, 2006)

Key Insight: Further to its previous orders imposing $111,348 in sanctions against Krumwiede for willful and bad faith spoliation of evidence, and where Krumwiede presented no evidence of financial inability to pay sanctions amount, court ordered Krumwiede to pay sanctions within 30 days or the remainder of his pleadings would be stricken

Nature of Case: Former employee who went to work for competitor sued for back pay and reformation of employment agreement; former employer asserted counterclaims for breach of non-compete and confidentiality clauses and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computers

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