Archive - 2006

Bergersen v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 2006 WL 334675 (D. Kan. Feb. 14, 2006)

In this wrongful termination case, defendants produced three CDs containing a total of 7,253 documents which, according to plaintiff, were not “kept in any perceivable sequential order.” Plaintiff argued that the production did not comply with Rule 34(b), which requires a party to produce documents “as they are kept in the usual course of business or . . . organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the request.” Despite the fact that defendants had the documents scanned onto computer disc, they contended that they were produced as they were kept in the usual course of business. They argued that they produced all responsive documents and were under no obligation to specifically identify any such documents or to provide a directory of documents produced. Read More

Free Speech Coalition v. Gonzales, 406 F.Supp.2d 1196 (D. Colo. 2005)

In this case, plaintiffs were all involved, in various capacities, in the adult entertainment industry. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to protect themselves from any enforcement action pending the litigation. Among other things, plaintiffs challenged new recordkeeping requirements under the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act and associated regulations. Ultimately, the court found that plaintiffs had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success in demonstrating that the amended portions of the statute and regulations created an undue burden as they related to chat rooms and to websites not controlled by the producer. The court therefore enjoined the Attorney General, pending the outcome of these proceedings or further order, from enforcing 28 C.F.R. �� 75.2(a)(1)(i) against any of the plaintiffs in their operation of an Internet chat room and from enforcing 28 C.F.R. �� 75.2(a)(1)(ii) against any of the plaintiffs or members of FSC with regards to a website that is not controlled by that plaintiff or member of the Free Speech Coalition. Read More

United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 233 F.R.D. 483 (N.D. Miss. 2006)

In this decision, the court discussed the plaintiff’s motion for in camera review of documents inadvertently produced by the defendants, the general requirements of privilege logs, the elements of various privileges and protections, and the factors to be considered in determining whether inadvertent production of privileged material effects a waiver. Read More

Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 591 F. Supp. 2d 1038 (N.D. Cal. 2006)

In this opinion, the court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law on Hynix’s unclean hands defense to Rambus’ patent infringement claims. The essential issues of the trial were: (1) whether Rambus adopted a document retention plan in order to destroy documents in advance of a planned litigation campaign against DRAM manufacturers, and (2) whether in light of any such conduct, the court should dismiss Rambus’ patent claims against Hynix as a sanction for unclean hands. Read More

McDowell v. Gov’t of Dist. of Columbia, 233 F.R.D. 192 (D.D.C. 2006)

As a result of the difficulties faced by plaintiff in trying to obtain discovery in this case, plaintiff sought an order granting summary judgment against the District as to the “practice of allowing in the field strip searches or searches that involve viewing or touching inside the clothes searches.” Plaintiff also sought costs and attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of defendants’ failure to produce the requested discovery materials, which included a spreadsheet and certain arrest forms referred to as “PD 163s.” Read More

Treppel v. Biovail Corp., 2006 WL 278170 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2006)

In this case, plaintiff alleged that Biovail Corp., its general counsel and certain others engaged in a “smear campaign” that destroyed plaintiff’s career as a securities analyst. He asserted claims of defamation, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and civil conspiracy. Plaintiff moved for an order compelling defendants to: (a) preserve all potentially discoverable data, whether maintained in electronic or paper form; (b) answer a range of questions concerning their electronic data management practices; and (c) produce all accessible data and documents responsive to his First Request for Production of Documents. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis denied the motion as to the preservation order, but granted the other relief requested. Read More

E & J Gallo Winery v. Encana Energy Servs., Inc., 2005 WL 3709885 (E.D. Cal. July 5, 2005)

In this action alleging natural gas price fixing, plaintiff sought severe sanctions against certain defendants and their counsel for taking actions which plaintiff claimed resulted in the cancellation of a third-party witness deposition set by plaintiff. The magistrate ultimately rejected the heavy sanctions requested by Gallo, finding that a further monetary sanction against the defendants’ law firm was in order. It imposed a $102,078.97 sanction against Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, with $92,078.97 to be paid to Gallo to defray its fees and expenses to pursue the sanctions motion, and $10,000 to be paid to the court. Read More

Gilliam v. Addicts Rehab. Ctr. Fund, Inc., 2006 WL 228874 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2006)

In this class action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, defendants identified 148 compact discs containing information responsive to plaintiffs’ requests for certain records. The discs contained payroll and timekeeping records for approximately 150 employees, and also contained personal information, including health, credit, and family information about those employees. Read More