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 2011

Foreign Applicant’s Request for Secret Access to Foreign Debtor’s Emails “Manifestly Contrary” to U.S. Public Policy


In re Toft, No. 11-11049 (ALG), 2011 WL 3023544 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2011)

In this case, a foreign applicant, Dr. Martin Prager, sought recognition and enforcement of a German court’s “Mail Interception Order” which authorized Prager, as insolvency administrator, to intercept the debtor’s postal and electronic mail. The court, following its determination that there was a sufficient basis to exercise jurisdiction, denied the application upon finding that the relief requested was manifestly contrary to U.S. public policy.

Court Upholds Sanctions against “International Man of Mystery” citing Affirmative Actions to Destroy Relevant Documents in Unallocated Space


Genger v. TR Investors, LLC, No. 592,2010, 2011 WL 2802832 (Del. July 18, 2011) As previously summarized on this blog (here), the Delaware Court of Chancery ordered sanctions against the defendant for wiping the unallocated space on his company’s computer system, despite a court order prohibiting such destruction.  On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court upheld… Continue Reading

For e-Discovery Efforts “Wholly Devoid of Competence” and for Spoliation, Court Orders Sanctions and Prohibits Indemnification from Insurer


PIC Group, Inc. v. LandCoast Insulation, Inc., No. 1:09-CV-662-KS-MTP, 2011 WL 2669144 (S.D. Miss. July 7, 2011)

A Special Master determined that defendant’s discovery failures were largely the result of a “callous and careless attitude” rather than a “craven effort to hide or destroy information”, save one instance of intentional deletion by defendant’s Manager of Legal Affairs. Adopting in part the Special Master’s recommendations, the court ordered sanctions, including production of the non-privileged contents of the manager’s hard drive and payment of plaintiff’s attorney’s costs and fees, with the condition that payment be rendered by defendant, not its insurance company.

Court Rejects Refusal to Issue Litigation Hold Before 26(f) Conference, Orders Litigation Hold on All Evidence Reasonably Related to Pending Litigation


Haraburda v. Arcelor Mittal USA, Inc., No. 2:11 cv 93, 2011 WL 2600756 (N.D. Ind. June 28, 2011)

In this case, plaintiff came to believe, based on defendant’s comments and refusal to issue a litigation hold, that relevant evidence would be destroyed. Accordingly, plaintiff moved for an Order to Preserve Evidence. Following consideration of the relevant factors and upon rejecting defendant’s arguments that plaintiff’s motion was improper prior to the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference, the court granted the motion and ordered defendant to implement a litigation hold on information that may reasonably be related to the pending litigation.

Upcoming Events – July 2011

Posted in EVENTS

6th Annual Solo and Small Firm Conference (Sponsored by the Washington State Bar Association) July 14-16, 2011 Ocean Shores Convention Center Ocean Shores, WA K&L Gates Staff Lawyer Beau Holt will present on the topic of “Ethics and Electronic Communication (Other than Social Media)” at 9:15 AM on Friday, July 15th. Topics to be addressed… Continue Reading

Connecticut Amends Rules Addressing Electronic Discovery, Effective 2012

Posted in NEWS & UPDATES

On June 20, 2011, the judges of the Superior Court adopted revisions to the Connecticut Practice Book, including many amendments addressing electronic discovery.  Most amendments (including those addressing electronic discovery) will become effective on January 1, 2012.  Although Connecticut’s rules previously addressed the issue of electronic discovery, the newest amendments provide substantially more instruction.  Among the more… Continue Reading

Court Reviews Plaintiff’s Facebook Account to Identify Material Subject to Discovery


Offenback v. L.M. Bowman, Inc., No. 1:10-CV-1789, 2011 WL 2491371 (M.D. Pa. June 22, 2011) In this case arising from a car accident which the plaintiff claimed resulted in physical and psychological injuries, the parties invited the court to conduct a review of Plaintiff’s social networking accounts “in order to determine whether certain information contained within… Continue Reading