Archive: October 2005

1
Careless Inadvertent Disclosure of Vital Emails Results in Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege
2
AMD Subpoenas Dozens of Major Intel Customers
3
Everyone Needs A Solid Document Retention Policy – Even Dilbert!
4
Court Finds Failure to Preserve and Produce Material from Third Party Electronic Database Improper Grounds for Dismissal
5
Court Enforces Clawback Provision; Producing Party to Pay Expenses for Deletion of Inadvertently Produced Email from Database
6
General Motors Relies Upon Computer Search that Yields Incomplete Results; Court Orders $700,000 Fine, Strikes 3 Affirmative Defenses, and Restricts Challenge of Expert
7
E-Discovery Tops List of In-House Worries
8
The Sedona Guidelines, September 2005
9
E-mail to Lawyers: E-discovery Rules on the Way
10
Order to Produce Electronic Spreadsheets as Kept in the Ordinary Course Requires Production with Metadata Intact; Spreadsheet Cells to Remain Unlocked

Careless Inadvertent Disclosure of Vital Emails Results in Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege

Atronic International GMBH v. SAI Semispecialists of America, Inc., 232 F.R.D. 160 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)

Atronic International (“Atronic”) sued SAI Semispecialists of America (“SAI”) in connection with a breach of contract. At the end of 2003, during initial Rule 26 disclosures, Atronic’s production included two emails between an Atronic employee and international counsel. These emails were again produced on January 7, 2005 as exhibits to be used at deposition. Upon realizing that it had produced apparently privileged documents, Atronic sought an order requiring the return of the emails and barring defendant from using the information therein. Read More

AMD Subpoenas Dozens of Major Intel Customers

Advanced Micro Devices said it has served subpoenas to 36 major U.S. tech companies seeking documentation to support its antitrust lawsuit against Intel. AMD expects to receive 6 to 8 terabytes of data in documentation from the subpoenaed companies, which is shaping up to be one of the largest U.S. cases involving electronically stored information.

“We are expecting a tidal wave of material,” said Chuck Diamond, AMD’s lead outside counsel for the case. Read the entire article from Computer Business Reveiew Online.

Court Finds Failure to Preserve and Produce Material from Third Party Electronic Database Improper Grounds for Dismissal

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 427 F.3d 727 (10th Cir. 2005)

In 1995, the Proctor & Gamble Company and the Procter & Gamble Distributing Company (collectively “P&G”) sued Randy Haugen (“Haugen”) (an Amway Corporation distributor) and others under the Lanham Act and Utah common law. P&G alleged that Haugen had associated P&G with the Church of Satan via a voice mail message distributed to other Amway distributors, causing P&G to lose business. Read More

Court Enforces Clawback Provision; Producing Party to Pay Expenses for Deletion of Inadvertently Produced Email from Database

Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Purdue Frederick Co., et al., 2005 WL 2433042 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sept. 7, 2005) (Unpublished)

In 2004, Purdue Frederick Co. (“Purdue”) produced email in connection with this difficult and document intensive insurance coverage dispute. About nine months following this production, Steadfast Ins. Co. (“Steadfast”) filed and served an affidavit opposing a motion for partial summary judgment which used this email in an exhibit. Purdue then gave notice that the email had been inadvertently produced and filed a motion seeking relief. Read More

General Motors Relies Upon Computer Search that Yields Incomplete Results; Court Orders $700,000 Fine, Strikes 3 Affirmative Defenses, and Restricts Challenge of Expert

Serra Chevrolet, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., No. CV-01-VEH-2682-S (N.D. Ala. May 20, 2005) (Order Granting Motion for Sanctions)

Serra Chevrolet, Inc. (“Serra”) filed a complaint against General Motors Corp. (“GM”) on October 23, 2001. Allegations in this case include claims that GM improperly awarded an additional dealership to Serra’s chief competitor, Edwards Chevrolet, and unduly restricted Serra’s allocation of vehicles. Read More

E-Discovery Tops List of In-House Worries

Fulbright & Jaworski’s annual survey of corporate counsel reflects a growing concern about the costs and consequences of electronic discovery. The 2005 litigation-trends survey found that e-discovery was the No. 1 new litigation-related burden for companies with revenues of more than $100 million. With e-mail and other digital data becoming more prevalent as evidence in lawsuits, effective record keeping is becoming a priority, and record retention policies and litigation hold policies are gaining in prevalence. Read the full 10.11.05 article by Petra Pasternak on CalLaw [subscription required.]

The Sedona Guidelines, September 2005

The Sedona Guidelines: Best Practice Guidelines & Commentary for Managing Information & Records in the Electronic Age is now available for download. This document, the second published by The Sedona Conference Working Group Series, addresses “questions related to the management of electronic information in organizations as a result of business, statutory, regulatory and legal needs. The subject of information management and record retention is of critical importance in the digital age and the subject of many treatises and publications, yet the members and participants of the Working Group believed there was a need to distill existing thoughts and, in doing so, reach across the boundaries of legal compliance, records management and information technology.” To view and download the complete report, click here.

Order to Produce Electronic Spreadsheets as Kept in the Ordinary Course Requires Production with Metadata Intact; Spreadsheet Cells to Remain Unlocked

Williams v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 230 F.R.D. 640 (D. Kan. 2005)

Shirley Williams sued Sprint/United Management Company in a collective action asserting that age was a determining factor in Defendant’s decision to terminate employment in connection with a reduction-in-force (“RIF”). Regular discovery conferences were held with Magistrate Judge Waxse, who entered orders in this decision concerning Defendant’s production of electronic spreadsheets. Read More

Copyright © 2015, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.