Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations – Page 43

U & I Corp. v. Advanced Med. Design, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 667 (M.D. Fla. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff abused discovery process by, among other things, failing to produce email attachments and belatedly advising defendant and court that certain emails were unrecoverable, court imposed monetary sanctions against plaintiff and granted request for limited inspection of computer hard drives used by certain of plaintiff’s employees to be conducted by independent forensic examiner

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, account stated, open account, and unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives of plaintiff’s employees

Ideal Aerosmith, Inc. v. Acutronic USA, Inc., 2008 WL 4693374 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 23, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court ordered production of a 30(b)(6) deponent with sufficient knowledge of designated topics and monetary sanctions against defendant where defendants? designated deponent was unable to answer ?the most basic questions? regarding defendants? response to discovery including what computers were searched for documents, what backup tapes or other media was searched, and what backup media was utilized by the company; court stated that deponent had obligation to educate self on designated issues prior to deposition

Nature of Case: Statutory Action arising from 18 U.S.C. ? 2511 (Wiretapping)

Electronic Data Involved: Testimony from 30(b)(6) deponent regarding discovery responses

Keithley v. Homestore.com, 2008 WL 5234270 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Rejecting each of defendant?s objections, court adopted Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge imposing monetary sanctions for discovery violations but did not adopt recommendation for adverse inference instruction because summary judgment in favor of defendant rendered issue moot

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, source code, document retention policies

Baird v. Dept. of the Army, 517 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Finding that administrative judge abused his discretion in refusing to compel production of relevant email, and given defendant?s ?lax attitude? towards compliance with plaintiff?s discovery requests, court vacated final decision of Board and remanded case to Board, to be remanded to administrative law judge with directions to order defendant to promptly produce all relevant emails and to assure that all relevant personnel either had already, or will promptly, produce all relevant emails; if such production of email resulted in further evidence to support Baird’s theory, administrative judge to afford Baird another hearing

Nature of Case: Civilian employee at Army hospital sought review of Merit Systems Protection Board final decision sustaining her termination for having failed random drug test

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Spieker v. Quest Cherokee, LLC, 2008 WL 4758064 (D. Kan. Oct. 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Granting leave to refile, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of emails for failure to show their relevance to class certification but rejected defendants? argument that $375,000 cost of production was unduly burdensome in light of amount in controversy where defendant argued claims of named plaintiffs were worth $100,000 or less but plaintiff argued claims of the class exceeded $5 million; court also stated that where defendant was in better position to identify search terms it should do so to reduce volume, that the cost of production versus the amount in controversy did not render email data ?not reasonably accessible,? and that parties should address Rule 502 in any future discussions regarding cost, among other things

Nature of Case: Class action for failure to pay royalties arising from oil and gas leases

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. M&M Petroleum Servs., Inc., 2008 WL 5423820 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant offered plaintiff access to the relevant computer for analysis but where defendant had not yet provided access and had failed to confirm production of all responsive documents from all relevant computers pursuant to court order, court ordered defendant to make computer available within 15 days so that plaintiff?s expert might ?ascertain for itself whether all responsive documents have been produced or?whether any relevant information on the hard drive or drives have been destroyed, erased, or wiped? and to serve verified supplemental responses to discovery indicating ?a diligent search of every computer [at issue]?

Nature of Case: Complaint for declaratory relief pursuant to Petroleum Marketing Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

Williams v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 2008 WL 192991 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 22, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where privilege log entries failed to identify who sent or received documents, disclosed little or no information about actual contents of documents, used boilerplate objections which court had previously ruled were insufficient, and court had previously ordered Taser to provide more information in privilege logs, court concluded that Taser?s unjustified delay in providing a meaningful privilege log was inexcusable, in bad faith and deserving of sanctions; Taser?s assertions of attorney client privilege and work product doctrine were deemed waived and court ordered Taser to produce all documents identified in privilege logs

Nature of Case: Wrongful death

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email and other documents

Anderson v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 2008 WL 4816620 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Plaintiff?s motion for contempt sanctions for discovery abuse denied where defendant indicated no documents responsive to subpoena existed, where search for documents entailed ?paper files, electronic files, hard drives, archives, computers, etc.?, where search was performed in presence of defendant?s paralegal and where defendant hired a contractor to search for archived emails but still found nothing; court found plaintiff?s reliance on ?passing statement? regarding email communication at deposition ?insufficient to prove that the purported emails ever existed?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Flying J, Inc. v. TA Operating Corp., 2008 WL 5449714 (D. Utah Dec. 31, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court declined to enforce prior Order compelling discovery where defendants produced documents from limited time frame but could produce no more because the information was recycled pursuant to its previously disclosed retention policy, prior to defendant?s notice of the lawsuit; court declined to compel production of alternative information because it was not what plaintiffs originally sought or what was required by the Order

Nature of Case: Unlawful conspiracy to prevent and suppress competition

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on back up tapes

Keithley v. Homestore.com, 2008 WL 4830752 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where late production of documents resulted in some prejudice to defendants but where prejudice was minor in light of limited relevance of the documents produced and their limited value to defendants? case and where defendants failed to show that documents missing from production were destroyed rather than ?simply lost? or a significant degree of resulting prejudice, court declined to impose dismissal or adverse inference but ordered monetary sanctions pursuant to Rule 37; monetary sanctions in the amount of $205,507.53 were subsequently ordered (Keithley v. Homestore.com, 2009 WL 55953 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2009))

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Tag:Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations