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

Monthly Archives: September 2010

Court Finds No Waiver of Privilege as to Emails Inadvertently Produced by Third Party and No Waiver Resulting from Use of Company Email Account and Laptop to Communicate with Counsel

Posted in CASE SUMMARIES

DeGeer v. Gillis, 2010 WL 3732132 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 17, 2010)

In this case, the court addressed the question of waiver as to nine privileged emails. As to six emails inadvertently produced by a third party, waiver was averted by the terms of a Stipulated Protective Order entered by the court which precluded waiver by inadvertent production. As to three other emails, the question of waiver turned on plaintiff’s use of his work computer to send the messages. Relying on evidence that plaintiff’s employer did not believe such use would waive privilege, the court ruled privilege was not waived.

Finding No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Plaintiff’s Social Networking, Court Compels Authorization to Disclose Current and Historical Content

Posted in CASE SUMMARIES

Romano v. Steelcase, Inc., 907 N.Y.S.2d 650 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010) Defendant sought to discover plaintiff’s “current and historical Facebook and MySpace pages and accounts”, including deleted information, on the belief that information posted there was inconsistent with her injury claims.  The court granted the motion, despite plaintiff’s privacy concerns, upon finding the information was… Continue Reading

Court Orders Mirror Imaging to Ensure Preservation During Ongoing Discovery But Declines to Compel Production of Plaintiff’s Computer to Defendants

Posted in CASE SUMMARIES

Piccone v. Town of Webster, 2010 WL 3516581 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2010) In this case, both parties moved for spoliation sanctions alleging destruction of emails.  Defendants also sought to compel production of certain emails and plaintiff’s personal computer and storage devices to ensure she was not withholding evidence.  Both motions for sanctions were denied.  Despite denying… Continue Reading

The Sedona Conference® Publishes 2010 Update to its Commentary on Legal Holds and the Third Edition of The Sedona Conference Glossary

Posted in NEWS & UPDATES, RESOURCES

The Sedona Conference®, a charitable research and education institute “dedicated to the advancement of law and policy in the areas of antitrust law, complex litigation and intellectual property rights” recently published an update to its 2007 Commentary on Legal Holds, which, according to its authors, “reflects an accurate view of reasonable and defensible practices that… Continue Reading

The Grimm Truth About Spoliation

Posted in CASE SUMMARIES

Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., No. MJG-06-2662 (D. Md. Sept. 9, 2010)

For willful, bad faith discovery violations, including failure to implement a litigation hold, attempted deletion of ESI, actual deletion of ESI, and misrepresentations regarding the completeness of discovery, the Court recommended default judgment and a permanent injunction as to plaintiff’s copyright claim and ordered monetary sanctions and that defendants’ acts of spoliation be treated as contempt such that an individual defendant, the President of Creative Pipe, be jailed for not more than two years “unless and until” he pays the attorney’s fees and costs awarded.

Son’s Receipt of Privileged Emails Did Not Result in Waiver where Son was a “Necessary Conduit in Delivering” Attorney’s Emails to Plaintiffs

Posted in CASE SUMMARIES

Green v. Beer, 2010 WL 3422723 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2010)

In this day in age, it is easy to believe that everybody is familiar with email. That is not always the case. In this opinion, the district court reversed an order of the magistrate judge which found that plaintiffs’ attorney-client privilege was waived as a result of their son’s receipt of privileged emails where it was established that the son’s assistance was necessary to ensure plaintiffs’ timely receipt of the emails, in light of plaintiffs’ lack of email proficiency.