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
Key Insight: Magistrate judge adopted special master’s recommendations regarding motion to compel production of source code, and ordered Chronotek to produce the portions of its source code, if any, that incorporated particular technology subject to an appropriate protective order, or, if source code did not incorporate particular technology at issue, affidavit of knowledgeable person attesting to same
Nature of Case: Patent litigation
Electronic Data Involved: Source code
Key Insight: District court upheld magistrate judge?s ruling that Target’s ?litigation hold? notices were subject to attorney-client privilege and work product protection since notices were communications of legal advice from corporate counsel to corporate employees regarding document preservation; however, court sustained objection to magistrate’s ruling that privilege log was inadequate for failing to separately itemize each individual email quoted in an email string, concluding that Rule 26(b)(5)(A) does not require separate itemization of each individual email quoted in an email string
Nature of Case: Putative class action alleging violations of Truth in Lending Act
Electronic Data Involved: Litigation hold notices; privileged email
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
Key Insight: Court declined to enter non-destruction order since it had already advised party’s counsel about possible penalties for spoliation and assumed that the message had been passed along; court further denied request for array of orders compelling party to make extensive searches of electronic documents and to permit forensic computer expert to examine all network servers, desktop and laptop computers, hard drives, backup tapes, and PDAs for responsive documents
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel responses to certain interrogatories, finding that defendant?s vague contention that interrogatories were burdensome and oppressive was unconvincing given its computerized database: “Without further evidence to the contrary, the Court believes that the alleged difficulty of distilling the requested information from the computerized database is overblown.”
Nature of Case: Race discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Information contained in database
Key Insight: Motion for forensic examination of opposing party’s computer hard drives denied where movant failed to provide any details about how the examination would be conducted and did not present specific, concrete evidence of concealment or destruction of evidence sufficient to justify the relief requested; instead, court found appropriate the “compromise” suggested by plaintiff that its own attorneys personally review the computers to ensure that any additional responsive documents that may exist in readable form were produced
Nature of Case: Misappropriation of intellectual property
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives
Key Insight: Court entered default judgment as discovery sanction where forensic evidence showed that defendant deliberately used ?wiping? software to permanently remove data from her hard drive and stated: “The sanction in the present case is to deter other defendants in similar cases from attempting to destroy or conceal evidence of their wrongdoing.”
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive
Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel and overruled defendants’ objections that terms “electronic databases,” “personnel related data,” “database,” “coded fields” and “data dictionaries” were vague and ambiguous, since plaintiffs had attempted to resolve any ambiguity by providing definitions in a separate letter and court’s own guidelines referred to The Sedona Conference? comprehensive glossary of terms related to electronically stored information
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Databases
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s request that defendants produce metadata for all records maintained in electronic form produced to date, where plaintiff did not demonstrate a particularized need for metadata, the parties had no agreement about the format of production of electronic files, and plaintiff did not seek metadata until months after defendants had produced hard copy and electronic copies of documents; if plaintiff still desired metadata, court suggested plaintiff identify specific documents for which it was needed
Nature of Case: Antitrust and anti-competitive conspiracy claims
Electronic Data Involved: Metadata
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.