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

Monthly Archives: July 2008

Court Issues Fourth Order Regarding Forensic Inspection of Defendant’s Computer Systems; Finds Defendant’s Behavior Fell “Just Shy” of Conduct Befitting Default Judgment


Square D Co. v. Scott Elec. Co., 2008 WL 2779067 (W.D. Pa. July 15, 2008) In June 2007, the court had ordered, among other things, that defendant Globe Electric Supply Co. “submit to a forensic inspection of its computer systems which record its purchases and sales of Square D products and its inventory of such… Continue Reading

Liability for State Law Spoliation Cause of Action Does Not Result Simply from Failure to Implement Litigation Hold or Defects in Its Scope or Substance


Ed Schmidt Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Co., LLC, 2008 WL 2704859 (N.D. Ohio July 7, 2008) In this breach of contract litigation, the court had previously granted plaintiff leave to amend its complaint to add a state law cause of action for spoliation of evidence based on defendant’s failure to implement a litigation… Continue Reading

Court Denies Defendant’s Post-Production Motion for Cost-Shifting as Untimely and Inappropriate in the Context of “Accessible” ESI


Cason-Merenda v. Detroit Med. Ctr., 2008 WL 2714239 (E.D. Mich. July 7, 2008) In this class action litigation, defendant moved, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), for an order requiring plaintiffs to pay at least 50 percent of its third party vendor electronic discovery costs. The court first observed that the parties had entered… Continue Reading

The Sedona Conference® Cooperation Proclamation


July 2008.  Available for free download here. Excerpt: The costs associated with adversarial conduct in pre-trial discovery have become a serious burden to the American judicial system.  This burden rises significantly in discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”).  In addition to rising monetary costs, courts have seen escalating motion practice, overreaching, obstruction, and extensive, but… Continue Reading

Court Grants Protective Order and Prevents Plaintiff from Inquiring About “Storage, Preservation and Backup of Emails” in Defendants’ Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions


Cunningham v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 2008 WL 2668301 (D. Colo. July 1, 2008) In this case arising out of a homeowner’s insurance claim, defendants sought a protective order to prevent plaintiff from inquiring into various topics during defendants’ Rule 30(b)(6) depositions.  One topic was to be:  “Knowledge concerning the storage, preservation and backup of… Continue Reading

Court Declines to Shift Cost of Forensic Examination Necessitated by Party’s Own Actions and Inaction


Peskoff v. Faber, 251 F.R.D. 59 (D.D.C. 2008) In a previous decision, Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola addressed the sufficiency of the search done by defendant Michael Faber for emails and other ESI in response to plaintiff’s discovery requests, and determined that it was "appropriate to ascertain the cost of forensic testing of the computers and… Continue Reading

Over 1,000 Cases Now Included in K&L Gates’ E-Discovery Case Database

Posted in NEWS & UPDATES

We are pleased to announce that our searchable case database now contains over 1,000 e-discovery cases from state and federal jurisdictions, with new cases being added every week.  Now more than ever, our database is an excellent source of information on developing e-discovery case law around the country. The database is still searchable by keyword,… Continue Reading

Third Party Not Required to Produce Hard Drives to Plaintiff Competitor; Court Limits Subpoena and Allows Third Party to Conduct its Own Search


Daimler Truck N. Am. LLC v. Younessi, 2008 WL 2519845 (W.D. Wash. June 20, 2008) In this case, Daimler sued its former employee in Oregon district court for breach of his duty of loyalty, his confidentiality contract, and his common law duty not to convert confidential and proprietary information, based upon the employee’s departure and… Continue Reading

Court Grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery Sanctions, Enters $5,247,781 Default Judgment and Awards $645,760 in Attorneys’ Fees and Costs


S. New England Tel. Co. v. Global NAPs, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 82 (D. Conn. 2008) (Second Amended Ruling) In this case, plaintiff (“SNET”) alleged that Global NAPS, Inc. had misrouted long-distance traffic of certain circuits not designated for such traffic, thereby depriving SNET of applicable access charges, and that Global failed to pay SNET access charges… Continue Reading