Archive: December 1, 2007

1
Hendricks v. Smartvideo Techs., Inc., 2007 WL 220160 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2007)
2
Rodgers v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 2007 WL 257714 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2007)
3
NSB U.S. Sales, Inc. v. Brill, 2007 WL 258181 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2007)
4
Reino de Espana v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, 2007 WL 210018 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2007)
5
Goss Int’l Ams., Inc. v. Graphic Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., 2007 WL 161684 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 11, 2007)
6
Polycom, Inc. v. Codian Ltd., 2007 WL 194588 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2007)
7
Williams v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 2007 WL 214320 (D. Kan. Jan. 23, 2007)
8
Friel v. Papa, 829 N.Y.S.2d 569 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
9
DE Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 2007 WL 128966 (W.D. Va. Jan. 12, 2007)
10
ABN Amro Mortgage Group, Inc. v. Promised Land Mortgage LLC, 2007 WL 101812 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 8, 2007)

Hendricks v. Smartvideo Techs., Inc., 2007 WL 220160 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied defense motion for dismissal based on plaintiff’s failure to preserve laptop’s hard drive, since there was no evidence that plaintiff’s conduct was intentional or in bad faith — plaintiff explained that hard drive was replaced after laptop crashed and before defendant’s discovery requests were received

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop hard drive

Rodgers v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 2007 WL 257714 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for ultimate sanction of dismissal based upon defendant’s loss of videotape, since there was no proof of willful or bad faith destruction and marginal relevance of missing videotape was such that plaintiff’s ability to prosecute the case was not meaningfully compromised

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance videotape showing unpleasant encounter between plaintiff and customer which preceded plaintiff’s termination

NSB U.S. Sales, Inc. v. Brill, 2007 WL 258181 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2007)

Key Insight: Defendant?s failure to comply with magistrate?s orders compelling production of email and other responsive documents warranted monetary sanctions as follows: (1) $26,667 for legal fees incurred by plaintiff as result of defendant?s discovery misconduct; (2) separate fine of $25,000 for defendant’s contempt of court orders; and (3) separate fine of $5,000 on defense counsel?s law firm for defense counsel?s role in his client?s actions

Nature of Case: Breach of licensing agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other responsive documents

Reino de Espana v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, 2007 WL 210018 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied Spain’s motion to reconsider November 3, 2006 Opinion and Order rejecting the various reasons offered as support

Nature of Case: Litigation brought by the government of Spain arising from shipping casualty and oil spill

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Goss Int’l Ams., Inc. v. Graphic Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., 2007 WL 161684 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 11, 2007)

Key Insight: Court ordered Swiss defendants to produce all documents relating to their contacts with the United States, including email, and further ordered that such email and any attachments be produced in native format as specified in the request for production

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Polycom, Inc. v. Codian Ltd., 2007 WL 194588 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of defendants’ source code in native format to be maintained in confidence at Los Angeles office of plaintiffs’ counsel in light of security concerns and technical support issues raised by defendants, and since defendants had already produced an electronic version of the source code and plaintiffs’ consultants had been inspecting the code for several months at defense counsel’s Palo Alto office; court rejected plaintiff’s argument that current system intruded on plaintiff’s work product

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Williams v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 2007 WL 214320 (D. Kan. Jan. 23, 2007)

Key Insight: Upon remand from district court judge, magistrate set out various reasons why he denied plaintiffs’ motion to the extent it sought to impose sanctions for defendant’s alleged failure to produce all spreadsheet materials in native format, its failure to timely produce spreadsheet materials, and its conduct in re-producing spreadsheet materials in non-native format that had already been produced in native format

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheets

Friel v. Papa, 829 N.Y.S.2d 569 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Key Insight: Appellate court reversed portion of lower court’s order that granted plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendant’s answer as sanction for spoliation of evidence based on destruction of defendant’s computer hard drive, since plaintiffs inspected the hard drive and obtained the relevant information prior to its destruction and did not demonstrate any prejudice

Nature of Case: Defamation and wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

DE Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 2007 WL 128966 (W.D. Va. Jan. 12, 2007)

Key Insight: District judge modified magistrate’s December 4, 2006 sanctions order, allowing Dell to use the 57 disputed documents at trial since it concluded that Dell had provided the documents in a way that fulfilled all of its discovery obligations and DE had not moved to compel production of the documents in a different format

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents produced in searchable database

ABN Amro Mortgage Group, Inc. v. Promised Land Mortgage LLC, 2007 WL 101812 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 8, 2007)

Key Insight: Court analyzed application of attorney/client privilege and work product protection to information entered into a database and printed in spreadsheet format, comparing database to a “file cabinet” with “drawers” and “file folders”; court ultimately ordered production of a master spreadsheet with several categories of information redacted

Nature of Case: Contract and tort claims arising from alleged mortgage fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Database, spreadsheets

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