Inspection – Page 9 – Electronic Discovery Law

Autotech Techs. Ltd. P?ship v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., 2007 WL 2746650 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 17, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant argued that extracting requested information regarding 56,000 to 60,000 customer invoices from computer system would cost as much as $80,000, and alternative method for extracting information proposed by plaintiff was unsuccessful, court held parties to their prior agreement and determined that reasonable allocation was for plaintiff to pay 62 percent and defendant to pay the remainder; court further ordered defendant to provide proof of actual cost and proof of actual payment and stated that, if defendant is able to extract information for less than $80,000 or if parties arrive at different cost-shifting formula, that will control

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Customer information stored in database

Wood Group Pressure Control, L.P. v. B & B Oilfield Servs., Inc., 2007 WL 1076702 (E.D. La. Apr. 9, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court directed defense counsel to file supplemental memorandum regarding her communications with defendant regarding supplemental discovery responses and preservation of evidence and to provide documentation of same for in camera inspection; court further directed defendant to make available key player’s hard drive for forensic examination

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Drawings; hard drive

Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2007 WL 1308388 (W.D. La. May 1, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: District court upheld magistrate judge’s January 22, 2007 memorandum order and related protective order, as such orders were not clearly erroneous or contrary to law

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

Electronic Data Involved: Former employee’s home computer and new work computer

Peterson v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2007 WL 3232501 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 1, 2007

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion to enter and inspect crossing area and directed defendant to arrange for an employee to be on-site during the inspection to provide a download of all available date from event recorders and other components and equipment of the crossing signal system stored on-site; court denied motion to compel production of particular employee’s computer since the computer had been returned to a vendor and defendant had already produced a copy of computer’s hard drive

Nature of Case: Claims arising from collision between freight train and automobile

Electronic Data Involved: Data from event recorders and other components and equipment of the crossing signal system

Woodburn Const. Co. v. Encon Pacific, LLC, 2007 WL 1287845 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 30, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion to compel and for sanctions where parties had agreed on detailed ESI discovery protocol and defendant had opportunity to discover ESI from plaintiff pursuant thereto but never availed itself of that opportunity notwithstanding plaintiff’s continued cooperation; court further awarded sanctions to plaintiff for having to oppose the motion

Nature of Case: Construction litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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

Tag:Inspection