Header graphic for print
Electronic Discovery Law Blog Legal issues, news, and best practices relating to the discovery of electronically stored information.

Monthly Archives: May 2006

Magistrate Articulates Sampling, Conversion and Search Protocols for Hard Copy Insurance Claim Files


J.C. Associates v. Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Co., 2006 WL 1445173 (D.D.C. May 25, 2006) In this insurance coverage dispute, plaintiff sought discovery of the 1.4 million active and inactive claim and litigation files in defendant’s possession. Although the defendant did not physically search the 1.4 million files, it conducted an electronic search of the… Continue Reading

California Appellate Court Sides with Internet Publishers and Directs that Subpoenas Issued by Apple Computer, Inc. be Quashed


O’Grady v. Superior Court, 2006 WL 1452685 (Cal. Ct. App. May 26, 2006) Apple Computer, Inc. (Apple) brought this action alleging that persons unknown caused the wrongful publication on the World Wide Web of Apple’s secret plans to release a device that would facilitate the creation of digital live sound recordings on Apple computers. In… Continue Reading

Late Production of Electronic Documents Amounts to “Gross Negligence,” and Warrants Monetary Sanctions Against Defendants and Counsel


Phoenix Four, Inc. v. Strategic Res. Corp., 2006 WL 1409413 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2006) In this opinion, the court ruled on plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against certain defendants and their counsel Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass (“Mound Cotton”) for destruction and late production of evidence. Plaintiff requested: (1) an adverse inference instruction; (2) that defendants… Continue Reading

Magistrate Denies Request for Production of Native PST Files But Orders Defendants to Produce Electronic Material in a Readable, Usable Format


CP Solutions PTE, Ltd. v. General Elec. Co., 2006 WL 1272615 (D. Conn. Feb. 6, 2006) In this recently published case, plaintiff found fault with defendants’ production of 301,539 pages of documents in response to its 131 requests for production. Plaintiff moved to compel defendants (1) to supplement their production so as to identify every… Continue Reading

Magistrate Allows Inspection of Plaintiff’s Computer Where Many Financial Records Were Missing from Paper Production


Ukiah Auto. Invs. v. Mitsubishi Motors of N. Am., Inc., 2006 WL 1348562 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2006) In this brief order, the magistrate judge ruled on the parties’ discovery disputes, including Mitsubishi’s request for an order permitting it to inspect the computer used to record Ukiah’s business transactions. Although Ukiah claimed that it had… Continue Reading

District Court Affirms Magistrate’s Decision Finding No Privilege Waiver as to Personal Files Stored on (but Later Deleted from) Employer-Provided Laptop


Curto v. Med. World Communications, Inc., 2006 WL 1318387 (E.D.N.Y. May 15, 2006) In this opinion, the district court denied defendants’ objections to a magistrate’s discovery order which concluded that plaintiff had not waived any attorney-client privilege or work product protection as to documents originally created on (but subsequently deleted from) two employer-provided laptops.

Citing Sedona Principles, State Court Allows Forensic Imaging of Former Employee’s Home Computer


Quotient, Inc. v. Toon, 2005 WL 4006493 (Md. Cir. Ct. Dec. 23, 2005) In this case, Quotient alleged that while still a Quotient employee, Mr. Toon intentionally and surreptitiously provided a former Quotient employee access to Quotient’s computer system so that the former employee could obtain Quotient’s trade secrets and confidential information and use such… Continue Reading

Court Declines to Shift Costs of Production of E-mail from Backup Tapes, Citing Defendants’ Non-Compliant and Deceptive Discovery Tactics and Disregard of Court Orders


Wachtel v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 2006 WL 1286189 (D.N.J. May 8, 2006) (Unpublished) In this opinion, the court addressed plaintiff’s motion to compel production of certain materials being withheld by defendants on a claim of privilege. It also denied defendants’ appeals of earlier discovery orders issued by the magistrate which imposed an adverse inference… Continue Reading

Plaintiff’s Willful and Bad Faith Spoliation of Evidence and “Hide the Ball” Tactics Warranted Default Judgment on Counterclaims


Krumwiede v. Brighton Assocs., L.L.C., 2006 WL 1308629 (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2006) In this case, plaintiff sued his former employer for breach of his employee agreement, reimbursement of back pay, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and reformation of the employee agreement. On August 25, 2005, the former employer (“Brighton”) filed a counterclaim alleging that… Continue Reading

Morgan Stanley to Pay $15 Million Fine to Settle E-Discovery Charges

Posted in NEWS & UPDATES

From the New York Times: “Wall Street powerhouse Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. has agreed to pay a $15 million civil fine to settle federal regulators’ charges that it repeatedly failed to provide tens of thousands of e-mails that they sought in major investigations over several years, federal regulators said Wednesday. The Securities and Exchange… Continue Reading

TRO Requires Defendants to Return Proprietary Materials and Computers to Former Employer, and Provide Affidavit Affirming Compliance and/or Detailing Any Disposal of Items


Cardinal Health 414, Inc. v. Rogers, 2006 WL 1207962 (E.D. La. May 3, 2006) The court’s order enjoined the defendants and their employees or agents from soliciting any current employee of the plaintiff for employment. It also required the defendants to return to the plaintiff, through counsel, “any tangible property (including all copies, recordings and… Continue Reading

Lacking Adequate Information About Defendant’s IS Capabilities and Costs of Electronic Production, Court Orders Parties to Confer and Report Back


Thompson v. Jiffy Lube Int’l, Inc., 2006 WL 1174040 (D. Kan. May 1, 2006) In this (uncertified) consumer class action, the court considered plaintiffs’ motion to compel the production of documents. Defendant contended that plaintiffs’ production requests exceeded the scope of class certification discovery, and were vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome. For example, defendant… Continue Reading