Tag:Other Federal Rule(s) of Civil Procedure and/or Evidence

1
Perez v. KDE Equine, LLC, No. 3:15-cv-00562 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 4, 2017).
2
McQueen v. Aramark Corp. – 201611 (D. Utah, 2016)
3
Venturedyne v. Carbonyx (ND Ind., 2016)
4
Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (ND Cal, 2016)
5
Saller v. QVC, Inc. (ED Pa., 2016)
6
Vay v. Huston (WDPa, 2016)
7
Brackett v. Stellar Recovery, Inc. (E.D. Tennesee, 2016)
8
McIntosh v. USA (SDNY, 2016)
9
First Fin. Sec., Inc v. Lee (D. Minn, 2016)
10
Arcelormittal Indiana Harbor, LLC v. Amex Nooter, LLC (Northern District of Indiana, 2016)

Perez v. KDE Equine, LLC, No. 3:15-cv-00562 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 4, 2017).

Key Insight: Interrogatories asking for evidence proving or disproving engagement in interstate commerce are improper due to requesting conclusions of law.

Nature of Case: fair labor standards act violations

Keywords: interstate commerce

View Case Opinion

McQueen v. Aramark Corp. – 201611 (D. Utah, 2016)

Key Insight: Sanctions imposed after defendant’s failure to preserve relevant ESI after receiving a preservation letter from plaintiff.

Nature of Case: Wrongful death.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI work orders and related paper records.

Keywords: Defendant acted with gross negligence, but without intent to deprive the plaintiff of the information’s use in the litigation.

View Case Opinion

Venturedyne v. Carbonyx (ND Ind., 2016)

Key Insight: Specific metrics needed to object to the burden of a key-word search. Defendant objected to document requests on relevancy grounds.

Nature of Case: Contract breach.

Electronic Data Involved: Key-word search of ESI.

Keywords: Cooperation and the negotiation of keywords. Transparency in all aspects of preservation and production of ESI.

View Case Opinion

Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (ND Cal, 2016)

Key Insight: Oracle’s lawyers did not read the ESI produced to them, and instead accused Google of withholding critical evidence (that had been produced).

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI produced by Google.

Keywords: This case shows the critical importance of electronic document review. Discovery-concealment misconduct.

View Case Opinion

Saller v. QVC, Inc. (ED Pa., 2016)

Key Insight: Discovery sanctions motion.

Nature of Case: Workplace discrimination.

Electronic Data Involved: Employment records including personnel files of supervisors and documents regarding performance of other employees.

Keywords: Failure to preserve, search terms, motion to compel.

View Case Opinion

Vay v. Huston (WDPa, 2016)

Key Insight: Defendant alleges Plaintiff failed to produce documents and requests sanctions, including dismissal.

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI and scanned PDF documents and other documents.

Keywords: Proportionality, motion to compel (not filed)

View Case Opinion

Brackett v. Stellar Recovery, Inc. (E.D. Tennesee, 2016)

Key Insight: No sanctions when electronically stored information is lost during ordinary course of business.

Nature of Case: Sanctions

Electronic Data Involved: electronically stored information

Keywords: Safe harbor, Rule 37(e), good faith, normal course of business, spoiliation

View Case Opinion

McIntosh v. USA (SDNY, 2016)

Key Insight: Plaintiff unsuccessfully seeks injunction to prevent destruction of certain evidence. Defendants argued that sanctions would be inappropriate and no spoliation had occurred.

Nature of Case: Inmate pro se plaintiff asserts a host of constitutional violations against the U.S. and individual prison personnel.

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted video footage.

Keywords: Failure to preserve, destruction of evidence, spoliation, adverse inference.

View Case Opinion

First Fin. Sec., Inc v. Lee (D. Minn, 2016)

Key Insight: Magistrate recommended sanctions for defendants’ willful failure to comply with his discovery order. No finding of bad faith.

Nature of Case: Breach of contract.

Electronic Data Involved: Defendant emails and text messages.

Keywords: “Strong circumstantial evidence” that the defendants had concealed documents. Adverse inference instructions and legal costs imposed by court.

View Case Opinion

Arcelormittal Indiana Harbor, LLC v. Amex Nooter, LLC (Northern District of Indiana, 2016)

Key Insight: confidential settlement information in documents requested

Nature of Case: Negligence and breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: communications between Amex Nooter and IOSHA

Keywords: Confidential Settlement information, motion to compel, impeachment

View Case Opinion

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