December 1, 2006 – Page 9 – Electronic Discovery Law

Collaboration Props., Inc. v. Tandberg ASA, 2006 WL 2398766 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiff to submit amended proposal for protective order governing defendants’ production of source code, to include following items: (1) Defendants to produce a single electronic copy, to be kept either by plaintiff’s attorneys or by plaintiff’s expert; (2) electronic copy to be maintained pursuant to security scheme employed by plaintiff’s expert, as described at oral argument; and (3) Only three hard copies may be made, total

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Yancey v. GMC, 2006 WL 2045894 (N.D. Ohio June 26, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court ordered GM to produce “Kentucky Firefighter” and “Dancing Granny” emails if said emails can currently be found on GM’s email system, but GM would not be required to retrieve the emails from outside sources if they were not in GM’s possession; court further ordered that GM produce at its own expense the hard drives of various GM employees requested by plaintiff

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email and hard drives

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Scroghan, 851 N.E.2d 317 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court abused its descretion when it refused to enter protective order addressing Allstate’s production of computer program and manuals, since plaintiff made no showing that discovery under a protective order would be detrimental to his case, and it was shown that discovery without a protective order could be detrimental to Allstate

Nature of Case: Bad faith insurance litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Colossus computer program used by Allstate to evaluate claims

N3 Oceanic, Inc. v. Shields, 2006 WL 2433731 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 21, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions based upon spoliation allegedly committed by former president when he erased from his computer copies of documents containing information he believed to be proprietary to plaintiff, since defendant ?discarded the documents to avoid impropriety, not to engage in it? and because the evidence that was the subject of the spoliation claim was in the record and plaintiff suffered no prejudice

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary electronic documents, including business plans and customer lists

Forterra Sys., Inc. v. Avatar Factory, 2006 WL 2458804 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court ordered parties to meet and confer and agree upon appropriate procedures for plaintiff?s expert to view disputed source code in his office in electronic format, and ordered plaintiff to file a declaration from the expert agreeing to be bound by such procedures; parties further ordered to meet and confer and agree upon a procedure by which expert could seek to change the designation of portions of the source code from his eyes only to outside counsel only

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Leviton Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Nicor, Inc., 2006 WL 1305036 (D.N.M. Jan. 6, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Citing concerns that defendant had not accounted for documents that at one time were in its files, court ordered defendant to produce all responsive documents, submit a sworn declaration from a corporate officer setting forth precisely why it did not produce the documents that had been shown to the court, make its computers available for inspection by Leviton and its experts, and provide Leviton with an authorization to defendant’s email service company to produce all of defendant’s communication with its customers

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

Corporate Healthcare Fin., Inc. v. Breedlove, 2006 WL 2400073 (Md. Cir. Ct. Apr. 19, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff’s motion for expedited, limited discovery relating to the fate of five emails containing proprietary and trade secret information, which were sent by defendant from his business email account to his personal email account before his termination; plaintiff allowed limited access to defendant’s personal email account and hard drive, and would be allowed to depose defendant regarding actions taken with respect to subject emails and attachments

Nature of Case: Breach of employment agreement, misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Emails and attachments, personal computer hard drive

Delta Fin. Corp. v. Morrison, 819 N.Y.S.2d 908 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court ordered party to conduct additional searches of data restored from backup tapes, and to restore and search a sample of additional backup tapes, shifting all initial costs to the requesting party; court further directed producing party to prepare an affidavit detailing the number of responsive documents found and the costs and expenses associated with the processes, including but not limited to attorneys fees for privilege review, which would assist the court in determining whether a full search would be necessary and whether further cost-shifting was warranted

Nature of Case: Fraud and breach of contract claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email and non-email electronic documents restored from backup tapes

On Time Aviation, Inc. v. Bombardier Capital, Inc., 2006 WL 2092075 (D. Conn. July 26, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court overruled defendants’ objections to magistrate’s discovery rulings, concluding that absence of particular email from production did not mean that expert had intentionally hidden or destroyed it, particularly when expert was not listed as a recipient and testified that he did not recall receiving it

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraud, negligence

Electronic Data Involved: Email

India Brewing, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., 237 F.R.D. 190 (E.D. Wis. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Plaintiff not entitled to production of defendant’s document retention policy and information regarding computer systems because such information was unnecessary and irrelevant to claims and issues in litigation; court further ruled that defendant’s production in hard copy format satisfied its obligations under the rules: “To the extent that the documents IBI sought in its requests are kept in hard copy in the usual course of business, IBI is not entitled to any other format. To the extent that those documents kept in electronic form have been printed out and organized and labeled to correspond with the document request, again IBI is not entitled to any other format.”

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and negligent misrepresentation

Electronic Data Involved: Computer system information; document retention policy; electronic records

Archive - December 1, 2006