Tag:Inspection

1
Lamb v. Maloney, 850 N.Y.S.2d 138 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2
Thompson v. Harding Univ., 2007 WL 2081695 (E.D. Ark. July 20,2007)
3
Bishop v. Toys ?R? US-NY, LLC, 2007 WL 2042913 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2007)
4
Doe v. Morey Charter Sch., 2007 WL 2331864 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 14, 2007)
5
RMS Servs.-USA, Inc. v. Houston, 2007 WL 1058923 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 2007)
6
Square D Co. v. Scott Elec. Co., 2007 WL 3488809 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 14, 2007)
7
Hudson Global Res. Holdings, Inc. v. Hill, 2007 WL 1545678 (W.D. Pa. May 25, 2007)
8
John B. v. Goetz, 2007 WL 4198266 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 26, 2007)
9
G.D. v. Monarch Plastic Surgery, P.A., 2007 WL 201154 (D. Kan. Jan. 24, 2007)
10
John B. v. Goetz, 2007 WL 4014015 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 15, 2007)

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

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)

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)

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

Square D Co. v. Scott Elec. Co., 2007 WL 3488809 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 14, 2007)

Key Insight: Declining to impose sanctions at this stage of litigation, court reiterated its prior order requiring defendant to submit to a forensic inspection of its computer systems which record its purchases and sales of Square D products and its inventory of such products, with such inspection to be incurred at defendant’s sole expense and cost; court further denied defendant’s motion for protective order for lack of good cause

Nature of Case: Circuit breaker manufacturer alleged that defendants unlawfully imported, distributed, and sold counterfeit Square D products

Electronic Data Involved: Defendant’s computer systems

Hudson Global Res. Holdings, Inc. v. Hill, 2007 WL 1545678 (W.D. Pa. May 25, 2007)

Key Insight: Granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion for TRO/preliminary injunction, court also ordered counsel to confer and suggest within ten days an agreeable method by which plaintiff, through its computer forensics expert or otherwise, may access and permanently delete or retrieve its information from defendant’s portable external hard drive and personal computer which were in court’s custody

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleged claims of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition against former employee

Electronic Data Involved: Business data; laptop and portable hard drive

John B. v. Goetz, 2007 WL 4198266 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 26, 2007)

Key Insight: Where goal of prior discovery orders authorizing immediate forensic copying of computers of defendants’ 50 key custodians by plaintiff?s expert, escorted by United States Marshall, was to protect against defendants? destruction of responsive information in light of defendants? persistent and contumacious refusals to produce ESI, court denied motion for stay of orders pending appeal, finding that the class?s interests far outweighed any potential harm to defendants in the execution of the orders

Nature of Case: Class action on behalf of 550,000 children seeking to enforce their rights under federal law to various medical services

Electronic Data Involved: Computer systems of defendant Tennessee state agencies

John B. v. Goetz, 2007 WL 4014015 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 15, 2007)

Key Insight: Ruling on defense motions for clarification, court directed that plaintiffs? expert and court-appointed monitor shall ?forthwith inspect the State?s computer systems and computers of the fifty (50) key custodians that contain information relevant to this action,? that plaintiffs? expert or his designee ?shall make forensic copies of any computer inspected to ensure the preservation of all existing electronically stored information (?ESI?)?; court further ordered that United States Marshall should accompany the plaintiffs? expert to ?ensure that this Order is fully executed.?

Nature of Case: Class action on behalf of 550,000 children seeking to enforce their rights under federal law to various medical services

Electronic Data Involved: Computer systems of defendant Tennessee state agencies

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