Inspection – Page 11 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re EZ Pay Servs., Inc., 380 B.R. 861 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court approved Trustee?s request for permission to pay computer forensics expert $70,000 as a necessary cost and expense of preserving the estate, where recovery of deleted electronic information was necessary to enable Trustee to locate and administer valuable assets of estate and to understand debtor’s prepetition transactions, and where expert?s services provided a concrete benefit for the estate since approximately $400,000 in assets was recovered by Trustee as a result

Nature of Case: Bankruptcy case

Electronic Data Involved: 14 hard drives; deleted data

Ameriwood Indus., Inc. v. Liberman, 2007 WL 685623 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 23, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: On joint motion for clarification of court’s December 27, 2006 order, court approved parties’ agreed search term protocol but denied plaintiff’s request for list of ?hits? generated by searches; court further approved joint request for expert to provide information concerning defendants’ usage of their computer equipment, specifically: (1) use of erasure software or ?defragmentation? software; (2) use of detachable, portable storage media to access or download files; (3) evidence of mass deletions of files; and (4) evidence of large gaps in the contents of the files

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, deleted email and other files

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

Dec 01 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

Thompson v. Harding Univ., 2007 WL 2081695 (E.D. Ark. July 20,2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant received from an anonymous source a copy of an email sent by plaintiff which had not been produced by plaintiff in discovery, court denied defendant’s motion for access to plaintiff’s computer but stated that defendant would be permitted to depose plaintiff about items in his possession and items no longer in his possession, and court would be willing to entertain renewed motion depending on the testimony obtained

Nature of Case: Student who was suspended and denied re-admission alleged discrimination claims

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s personal computer

Bishop v. Toys ?R? US-NY, LLC, 2007 WL 2042913 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Overruling plaintiff’s objection that magistrate judge’s sanctions order did not go far enough and should have required defendant to retain a computer forensic expert to examine surveillance equipment to determine whether deleted images were recoverable, court found that order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law since defendant had produced affidavit of individual who personally installed and serviced the surveillance system who stated that he inspected the surveillance data system and determined that the images were not recoverable

Nature of Case: Customer asserted federal civil rights claims arising from his detention by store security guards

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

Doe v. Morey Charter Sch., 2007 WL 2331864 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 14, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: District court overruled plaintiff’s objections to magistrate judge’s order denying in part motion to compel since order was not clearly erroneous; although plaintiff argued that more material should have been produced, defendants represented that they had produced everything and magistrate judge noted that both sides’ counsel had access to mirror images of hard drives containing the requested data which had been seized in police investigation

Nature of Case: Allegations of sexual abuse and harrassment by former elementary school teacher

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

RMS Servs.-USA, Inc. v. Houston, 2007 WL 1058923 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied motion for protective order since record was incomplete, but ordered parties to meet and confer to develop a proposed discovery plan; court set forth specific instructions regarding preservation of documents to be observed by parties until they reached agreement on preservation plan

Electronic Data Involved: Email, hard drives, metadata, and other forms of electronic documents

Lighthouse Community Church of God v. City of Southfield, 2006 WL 1662615 (E.D. Mich. June 12, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Denying plaintiff’s request to inspect defendant’s computer system, court ordered defendant to produce all emails in its possession or control that were responsive to particular request for production, or provide a privilege log as to any emails claimed to be privileged; court warned defendants that failure to comply with the order could result in the imposition of “the most drastic sanctions permissible under Rule 37(b)(2), including striking their pleadings, entry of default judgment, and contempt of court sanctions”

Nature of Case: Following city’s issuance of citation for church’s use of building without certificate of occupancy, church asserted various constitutional claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

MGE UPS Sys., Inc. v. Titan Specialized Servs., Inc., 2006 WL 3524502 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 6, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where evidence showed that defendant had not fully complied with preliminary injunction and had continued to retain and use disputed software, court ordered defendant to produce all of its computers for inspection by plaintiff’s computer expert to ensure that all plaintiff’s software and trade secrets were removed; court further ordered defendant to bear costs of expert’s work and to pay plaintiff its reasonable fees and expenses in bringing the motion

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Software programs, disks, hard drives

Oved & Assocs. Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Los Angeles County Met. Transp. Auth., 2006 WL 1703824 (Cal. App. June 22, 2006) (Nonpublished, Noncitable)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: No abuse of discretion to impose terminating sanctions against plaintiff after years of “discovery stonewalling” which culminated in the intentional destruction of evidence; plaintiff “regularly and routinely” disobeyed trial court orders and intentionally destroyed relevant accounting records on hard drive that was to be mirror imaged

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of funds

Electronic Data Involved: Accounting files on hard drive

Tag:Inspection