Archive - August 2006

1
Court Finds In-House Counsel’s Litigation Database Privileged; Disclosure to Auditor did not Effect Waiver
2
E-Discovery of Dynamic Data and Real-Time Communications: New Technology, Practical Facts, and Familiar Legal Principles
3
BNA’s Patent Litigation Strategies Update
4
Nuances of the New Rules
5
Defendant Not Required To Produce Employee Contact Information in Electronic Form
6
Trial-Bound Companies Learn Lesson: Save E-mail
7
Court Awards $45,162 in Fees and Costs for Sanctions Motion, to be Shared Equally by Defendants and Their Counsel
8
eDiscoverylaw.com’s Searchable Case Database Now Contains Over 500 Cases, and Allows You to Search by Jurisdiction
9
Defendant’s Document Retention Policy “Clearly Relevant” and Must Be Produced
10
Court Awards Prevailing Party $4.6 Million in Costs for Litigation Database Creation

Court Finds In-House Counsel’s Litigation Database Privileged; Disclosure to Auditor did not Effect Waiver

Lawrence E. Jaffee Pension Plan v. Household Int’l, Inc., 2006 WL 1898151 (N.D. Ill. July 6, 2006)

In this securities fraud class action, plaintiffs sought to compel production of documents relating to Household’s litigation database. During the class period, Household’s Office of the General Counsel collected and maintained information regarding all litigation that was being prosecuted, defended, or supervised by attorneys in that department. The purpose of the database was to assist Household’s counsel in understanding, managing and providing legal advice to management about each lawsuit. According to Household, attorneys or staff under their direction added comments to the database reflecting the attorneys’ mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and strategies. Household further claimed that it implemented strict controls to protect the confidentiality of these records, and that the database has never been disclosed to Household’s outside auditors or any other third party.

Read More

E-Discovery of Dynamic Data and Real-Time Communications: New Technology, Practical Facts, and Familiar Legal Principles

A great article on dynamic data by Microsoft’s Tom Burt, Corporate Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Litigation, and Greg McCurdy, Senior Attorney, in the August 2006 of The Pocket Part, the online supplement to The Yale Law Journal.

"The forthcoming Federal e-discovery Rules are a welcome advance, but they do not address all of e-discovery’s challenging issues. For example, how should the law treat instant messaging (IM) or other forms of real-time communications? When must organizations or individuals preserve dynamic data such as databases or work in progress? Practical realities and established legal principles from the age of typewriters and telephones teach us that businesses should need to preserve real-time communications and dynamic data only when they record them for business purposes."

Click here to read the entire article.

BNA’s Patent Litigation Strategies Update

Preston partner Helen Bergman Moure is a member of the faculty that will present at the timely half-day pre-conference workshop — "E-Discovery in Patent Litigation:  New Rules, New Tools" — East Palo Alto, California.  The pre-conference workshop is scheduled for September 27, 2006.

The new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure covering retention and discovery of electronic evidence are expected to go into effect on December 1, 2006.  This is an opportunity to prepare for these significant changes.  The experts will examine the revisions in the context of patent litigation matters.

 For a brochure and further details on this two-day conference, click here.

 

 

Nuances of the New Rules

An article by Martha Dawson in Law Technology News’ August 2006 EDD Showcase:

"On December 1, 2006, assuming no last-minute action from Congress, new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing electronically stored information go into effect. The new rules will apply to all cases filed after December 1, and to all pending cases to the extent "just and practicable."

You’ve heard the news before, probably attended CLE programs discussing them, and may even have the text of the rules on your desk to read sometime soon. But do you understand what these rule changes really mean, as a practical matter, to you and your clients? Are you prepared?"

Click here to read the entire article.

Defendant Not Required To Produce Employee Contact Information in Electronic Form

E.E.O.C. v. Lexus Serramonte, 2006 WL 2329510 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2006)

In this decision, the court ruled upon plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to respond to the following:

(1) Interrogatory No. 9 “IDENTIFY each PERSON employed by YOU at YOUR Lexus of Serramonte Facility during the REQUESTED TIME PERIOD providing the following information for each: name, gender, hire date, last date employed if currently laid off, residence addresses, telephone numbers, social security number, and employment position.”; (2) Request No. 17 “An electronic database file, in Quattro Pro readable format, IDENTIFYING YOUR CURRENT employees in the Serramonte Facility including each employees’ name, gender, hire date, last date employed if currently laid off, residence addresses, telephone numbers, social security number, and employment position.”; and (3) Request No. 18 “An electronic database file, in Quattro Pro readable format, IDENTIFYING all female employees that worked with or under the supervision of Roderick V. Helaire, Francis Chang, Yan Epshtein and Bob Fraley from 2000 to the present, including each employee’s name, hire date, last date employed if currently laid off, residence addresses, telephone numbers, social security number, and employment position.”

Read More

Trial-Bound Companies Learn Lesson: Save E-mail

A story today by Larry Abramson on NPR’s Day to Day:

"A number of recent high-profile lawsuits suggest that companies must preserve important email documents on their computer systems, or risk major court sanctions. Increasingly, companies are turning to outside vendors to ensure they don’t accidentally destroy electronic documents that could come up in a lawsuit. "

Listen to the entire story here.

Court Awards $45,162 in Fees and Costs for Sanctions Motion, to be Shared Equally by Defendants and Their Counsel

Phoenix Four, Inc. v. Strategic Res. Corp., 2006 WL 2135798 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2006)

In a follow up to an earlier decision granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, Phoenix Four, Inc. v. Strategic Res. Corp., 2006 WL 1409413 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2006), the court evaluated plaintiff’s petition for attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the motion. Plaintiff sought $60,216 in fees and costs, and the SRC Defendants argued that plaintiff was to a maximum amount of only $17,658. The court found plaintiff had included time for reviewing 172 boxes of documents produced late by the SRC Defendants, and that this time was improper since plaintiff’s counsel would have had to review these documents anyway. Since the firm’s use of block billing made it impossible to identify the work specifically related to the motion, and separate it from unrelated work, the court reduced the requested total of $60,215.76 by 25 percent. Accordingly, the court granted Phoenix’s request for attorney’s fees and costs associated with bringing the motion for sanctions in the sum of $45,161.82, to be paid equally by the SRC Defendants and their law firm, Mound Cotton. The court further ruled that the SRC Defendants’ share “may not be borne by their insurance carriers.” Apparently, Mound Cotton was free to seek reimbursement from its insurance carrier if there was coverage for such.

eDiscoverylaw.com’s Searchable Case Database Now Contains Over 500 Cases, and Allows You to Search by Jurisdiction

As of August 4, 2006, our searchable case database contains 543 cases, 122 of which are cases decided in 2006. The database is an excellent source of information on developing e-discovery case law around the country. And, it allows you to search for cases in a particular jurisdiction. Our case citations follow The Bluebook uniform system of citation, and employ the geographical term abbreviations set out in T.11. Simply type in the jurisdiction’s abbreviation as a keyword search, e.g., "S.D.N.Y." or “D.N.J.” or "N.D. Cal." or "Tex." If you want both state and federal cases, just use the state abbreviation. To narrow down the results, or if you’re looking for a particular issue, e.g., "spoliation," you can check that box, and/or any other relevant attributes you’d like to search for, and run it together with the keyword jurisdiction search. For example, a simple “S.D.N.Y.” keyword search produces 72 cases; the same keyword search coupled with “spoliation” produces 19 results.

Click here to visit the database.  Happy searching!

Defendant’s Document Retention Policy “Clearly Relevant” and Must Be Produced

Petersen v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2006 WL 2054365 (C.D. Ill. July 21, 2006)

In this opinion, the magistrate judge overruled defendant’s objections to certain discovery requests, reminding the parties: “Remember, we are talking discovery, not admissibility at trial.” One of the disputed requests for production sought defendant’s document retention policy:
Read More

Court Awards Prevailing Party $4.6 Million in Costs for Litigation Database Creation

Lockheed Martin Idaho Techs. Co. v. Lockheed Martin Advanced Envtl. Sys., Inc., 2006 WL 2095876 (D. Idaho July 27, 2006)

In this diversity case, the federal district court awarded the prevailing party its costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) in three areas: (1) $4.6 million in costs for creating a litigation database; (2) $600,000 in costs for trial evidence presentation; and (3) $200,000 in costs for copies.

The court evaluated the request as follows:

Turning to the first category, the litigation database was necessary due to the extreme complexity of this case and the millions of documents that had to be organized. While the creation of the database is expensive, it is not unreasonably so, and it saved immense time for counsel who otherwise would have to sift through the documents by hand. Given these circumstances, the Court finds that these costs are recoverable under § 1920(4).

With regard to the trial evidence presentation costs, the Court required counsel to put the trial evidence in electronic format. It was important that the evidence presentation be efficient and of high quality. The Court cannot find these costs unreasonable. The Court will likewise approve the third category, the coping costs.

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.