Tag:Inspection

1
United States v. Tummins, No. 3:10-00009, 2011 WL 2078107 (M.D. Tenn. May 26, 2011)
2
Squeo v Norwalk Hosp. Assoc., No. CV095012548, 2011 WL 7029761 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 16, 2011)
3
Lorentz v. Sunshine Health Prods., Inc., 2010 WL 1856265 (S.D. Fla. May 10, 2010)
4
Robotic Parking Sys., Inc. v. City of Hoboken, 2010 WL 324524 (D.N.J. Jan. 19, 2010) (Unpublished)
5
U.S. Bank Nat?l Assoc. v. Parker, 2010 WL 559135 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 10, 2010)
6
U.S. v. Bortnick, 2010 WL 935482 (D. Kan. Mar. 11, 2010)
7
Holland v. Barfield, 35 So.3d 953 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)
8
People v. Spykstra, 234 P.3d 662 (Colo. 2010)
9
D’Onofrio v. SFX Sports Group, Inc., 2010 WL 3324964 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2010)
10
Maggette v. BL Dev. Corp., 2010 WL 3522798 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 2, 2010)

United States v. Tummins, No. 3:10-00009, 2011 WL 2078107 (M.D. Tenn. May 26, 2011)

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel production of defendant?s hard drive with all child pornography files redacted where the court determined that the likelihood that child pornography would remain on the drive after steps to redact were taken was ?relatively low? and where the government?s inspection accommodations in lieu of production did not provide the statutorily required ?ample opportunity for inspection? where the restrictions on inspection limited the time allowed for inspection and required the forensic examiner to leave his equipment unattended

Nature of Case: Criminal/ possession of child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Squeo v Norwalk Hosp. Assoc., No. CV095012548, 2011 WL 7029761 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 16, 2011)

Key Insight: In ongoing case addressing plaintiff?s claims of wrongful death resulting from their son?s release from the hospital and subsequent suicide, the court denied defendant?s motion to compel inspection of parents? personal home computer where parents alleged their son?s use of the computer was limited, where plaintiffs made significant efforts to assist in the retrieval of potentially relevant ESI from third parties including AOL, Facebook, and MySpace, where the requested inspection was unlimited by scope of data range, and where there was only speculation as to the existence of relevant evidence; court?s analysis included consideration of newly adopted revisions to Connecticut Practice Book

Nature of Case: Wrongful death

Electronic Data Involved: Personal computer

Robotic Parking Sys., Inc. v. City of Hoboken, 2010 WL 324524 (D.N.J. Jan. 19, 2010) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Court granted intervenor?s motion for a protective order where plaintiff (intervenor?s direct competitor) sought access to defendant?s garage operating computers possibly containing intervenor?s trade secrets but denied request to prevent access entirely where such access was necessary for plaintiff?s case, where there was no showing of irrelevance or burden, and where intervenor?s concerns were ?too speculative to warrant non-disclosure?; court ordered parties to split cost of software necessary for defendant to view forensic images produced by plaintiff where plaintiff sought to use the images at trial, where defendant had no way to view the court ordered production otherwise, and where the parties failed to properly discuss and agree upon discovery issues, including the cost of production, pursuant to local rule

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, source code

U.S. Bank Nat?l Assoc. v. Parker, 2010 WL 559135 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 10, 2010)

Key Insight: Considering both the ?good cause? standard and the ?preliminary injunction-style analysis? court determined plaintiff was not entitled to expedited discovery to conduct forensic examination of defendant?s cell phone, PDA, and personal computer where defendant assured the court the relevant data would be preserved and where plaintiff failed to show the potential for spoliation or resulting prejudice

Nature of Case: Breach of a Confidentiality and Non-Solicitation Agreement, tortious interference with Plaintiff’s relationships with its clients and misappropriation of Plaintiff’s trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

U.S. v. Bortnick, 2010 WL 935482 (D. Kan. Mar. 11, 2010)

Key Insight: Where the government proposed that expert?s access to hard drive seized from defendant be contingent upon submitting to search of expert?s person and equipment before leaving the Sherriff?s department after each visit, court found the search rendered the drive ?not reasonably available? and ordered the restriction lifted or, if the Sherriff was unwilling or unable to do so, that the drive be made available to defendant?s expert in a ?safe room? at the courthouse under the conditions proposed by defendant

Nature of Case: Criminal prosecution related to child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Copy of hard drive seized by police

Holland v. Barfield, 35 So.3d 953 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

Key Insight: Appellate court granted writ of certiorari and quashed lower court?s order compelling petitioner?s production of her hard drives and SIM card for inspection by respondent where there was no evidence of destruction of data or threat of destruction sufficient to support such an order, where the order did not protect petitioner against disclosure of confidential or privileged materials because petitioner was provided no opportunity to review materials prior to production, and where there were less intrusive means to acquire the data sought

Nature of Case: Wrongful death

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, cell phone (SIM card)

People v. Spykstra, 234 P.3d 662 (Colo. 2010)

Key Insight: Reversing the order of the trial court, the Supreme Court established 5 part test to challenge the issuance of a pretrial subpoena and quashed the subpoenas issued by defendant where, by ordering the relevant individuals to submit their computers to inspection by defendant?s expert, the trial court ?improperly converted the subpoenas into the functional equivalent of search warrants? and where defendant failed to establish any factual basis demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that the emails sought existed or that they contained material evidence

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, Contents of hard drives

D’Onofrio v. SFX Sports Group, Inc., 2010 WL 3324964 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendants? failed to preserve relevant evidence but later undertook a ?diligent and expensive attempt to retrieve what was lost? resulting in the discovery of hundreds of thousands of documents, the court declined to impose default judgment absent clear and convincing evidence of bad faith and found that the imposition of attorneys? fees would result in ?disproportional punishment? in light of defendants? search expenditures; court declined to impose adverse inference or issue preclusion where the quantity and nature of evidence still missing was in dispute such that prejudice could not be established and ordered an evidentiary hearing; court found letter sent to parent company of defendant (plaintiff?s employer) was sufficient to trigger preservation obligation where the letter made specific mention of its applicability to all subsidiaries, was unambiguous about the intent to sue, and indicated its applicability to SFX in its reference line

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, laptop

Maggette v. BL Dev. Corp., 2010 WL 3522798 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 2, 2010)

Key Insight: Where the defendant was warned that failure to uphold discovery obligations would result in severe sanctions and where, with the help of a special master, it was determined that defendant ?repeatedly and knowingly? concealed information from the court and acted in bad faith to prevent the discovery of relevant information, including interfering with counsel?s efforts to identify responsive information, the court ordered dispositive sanctions and found that an agency relationship existed as a matter of law between defendant and the bus company involved in the fatal accident that was the basis for plaintiffs? claims

Nature of Case: Claims arising from fatal bus accident

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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