Appointed Expert – Page 6 – Electronic Discovery Law

Munshani v. Signal Lake Venture Fund II, LP, 805 N.E.2d 998 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Dismissal of complaint was appropriate sanction for fraud on the court consisting of plaintiff’s forging email, swearing to its authenticity, and continuing to insist on its authenticity while independent computer expert investigated the matter and ultimately concluded the email was fabricated; plaintiff ordered to pay costs and fees of expert and defendants’ attorney’s fees and costs related to discovery of the fraud

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Forged email

Samide v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 773 N.Y.S.2d 116 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Court modified prior order directing defendants to produce contents of hard drives for in camera inspection; individual defendants now directed to produce hard copies of all emails relating to allegations against certain individual, including any deleted emails recovered by a qualified expert appointed by the referee supervising the discovery; only those emails that in fact deal with relevant allegations to be turned over to the plaintiff; plaintiff agreed to bear all costs related to recovery of data from hard drive

Nature of Case: Sex discrimination, negligent supervision and breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email and deleted email on hard drives of individual defendants

United States v. IBM, 76 F.R.D. 97 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Defendant required to produce computerized information; conduct of defendant and technical and complex nature of production warranted appointment of examiner pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53 to report to the court what materials the defendant possesses and whether defendant produced such material

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Tapes, files, programs, reports, input and output files

Aero Products Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 2004 WL 417193 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2004)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Motion for sanctions for destruction of email denied since plaintiff failed to follow procedure set forth in court’s prior order which would have required plaintiff to file a petition seeking the appointment of a computer forensics expert, and instead waited over seven months to bring the issue to the court in the form of a motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted email

Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. v. Michelson, 2004 WL 2905399 (W.D. Tenn. May 3, 2004)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Declining to determine whether its May 13, 2003 order contemplated the production of deleted files, court overruled defendant’s objections to special master’s order denying request for production of deleted files, finding that defendant’s request was untimely and that “the process of recovering deleted files at this late stage of litigation would be an undue burden on Medtronic and is based, the court’s opinion, on mere speculation that relevant deleted files could be recovered”

Nature of Case: Intellectual property litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted files

Tag:Appointed Expert