Tag:Inspection

1
Etzion v. Etzion, 796 N.Y.S.2d 844 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005)
2
TIG Ins. Co. v. Premier Parks, Inc., 2005 WL 468300 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 1, 2005) (Unpublished)
3
Advantacare Health Partners, LP v. Access IV, 2005 WL 1398641 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2005) (Unpublished)
4
McCarthy v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., 2005 WL 6157347 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 9, 2005)
5
Cornell Research Found., Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Co., 223 F.R.D. 55 (N.D.N.Y. 2003)
6
In re Search of 3817 W. West End, 321 F. Supp. 2d 953 (N.D. Ill. 2004)
7
Dikeman v. Mary A. Stearns, P.C., 560 S.E.2d 115 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)
8
Sega Enterprises, Ltd. v. MAPHIA, 948 F. Supp. 923 (N.D. Cal. 1996)
9
First Tech. Safety Sys., Inc. v. Depinet, 11 F.3d 641 (6th Cir. 1993)
10
S. Diagnostic Assoc. v. Bencosme, 833 So.2d 801 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Etzion v. Etzion, 796 N.Y.S.2d 844 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005)

Key Insight: Where husband consented to discovery of financial matters but resisted plaintiff’s broad request for access to all documents on all computers, court set out detailed protocol for the copying and review of computer data with oversight by court-appointed referee

Nature of Case: Divorce proceeding

Electronic Data Involved: Data on hard drives

TIG Ins. Co. v. Premier Parks, Inc., 2005 WL 468300 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 1, 2005) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Where insurer, in course of attempting to comply with discovery order, realized it had no electronic mechanism to retrieve case files based on whether a class was certified, but it could sort files by amount expended, court modified discovery order because it would have inflicted a substantial burden upon the insurer and the information produced would almost certainly be irrelevant

Nature of Case: Park operator alleged insurer failed to provide adequate counsel to defend a class action discrimination suit

Electronic Data Involved: Case file data

Advantacare Health Partners, LP v. Access IV, 2005 WL 1398641 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2005) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Court denied individual defendant’s motion for reconsideration of default judgment entered against her and other defendants for continued destruction of evidence and continued possession of plaintiff’s proprietary files; although there was no evidence that individual defendant personally engaged in wrongful acts, she was not insulated by simply leaving compliance with court orders to other defendant; further, individual had numerous opportunities to disavow knowledge of misconduct or detail what efforts she personally took to comply with court orders but never did so

Nature of Case: Misapproriation of trade secrets and related torts

Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary information in electronic form

McCarthy v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., 2005 WL 6157347 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 9, 2005)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s affidavit in support of motion stated that emails were used routinely in the course of defendants’ business, described defendants? backup process, and asserted that he was able to run a search on Lotus Notes folders he maintained, resulting in production by him to defendants of 5,000 emails, and defendants provided little information except to state that backup tapes were routinely overwritten and that deleted emails could not be recovered, court noted that defendants? efforts to preserve evidence or lack thereof could be an issue in the case and allowed plaintiff to designate IT expert to inspect hard drives and backup media identified in discovery demands; court further directed defendants to provide access, subject to inspection protocol and confidentiality stipulation to be submitted by parties for court approval

Nature of Case: Disability discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drives

Cornell Research Found., Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Co., 223 F.R.D. 55 (N.D.N.Y. 2003)

Key Insight: Where defendant resisted production of technical specifications in electronic form because material had already been produced at great expense in hard copy form, magistrate ruled that defendant must allow plaintiff’s expert to view material in electronic form at defendant’s facility during regular business hours under and such further terms and conditions as the parties agree

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Technical specifications

Dikeman v. Mary A. Stearns, P.C., 560 S.E.2d 115 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)

Key Insight: Former client’s discovery requests, including request for hard drives of lawyer’s computers that had generated documents pertaining to client, were overbroad, oppressive and annoying

Nature of Case: Fee dispute between lawyer and former client

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive

Sega Enterprises, Ltd. v. MAPHIA, 948 F. Supp. 923 (N.D. Cal. 1996)

Key Insight: Brief reference to court’s granting plaintiff’s requested ex parte TRO and seizure order to seize computers and hardware, copy memory, and delete pirated software before returning items to defendant

Nature of Case: Copyright and trademark infringement, unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives and memory devices (video game software)

First Tech. Safety Sys., Inc. v. Depinet, 11 F.3d 641 (6th Cir. 1993)

Key Insight: Ex parte order permitting plaintiff and its counsel, with U.S. Marshal, to enter defendants’ business premises and inventory and impound computer records and copy and inventory business records was abuse of discretion

Nature of Case: Crash test dummy manufacturer sued competitor for unfair competition, copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets and related torts

Electronic Data Involved: Computer programs and printouts

S. Diagnostic Assoc. v. Bencosme, 833 So.2d 801 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Key Insight: Appellate court granted writ and quashed trial court’s order granting party’s motion for leave to inspect non-party’s computer system; remanded with directions to trial court to craft a narrowly-tailored order that sets parameters and limitations on the inspection

Nature of Case: Insurance bad faith

Electronic Data Involved: Computer system; records of payments to physicians

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