Archive: December 1, 2007

1
Williams v. Armstrong, 2007 WL 1424552 (W.D. Mich. May 14, 2007)
2
In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litig., 2007 WL 1827635 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2007)
3
Motown Record Co. v. DePietro, 2007 WL 1725604 (E.D. Pa. June 11, 2007)
4
Omax Corp. v. Flow Int’l Corp., 2007 WL 1830631 (W.D. Wash. June 22, 2007)
5
Martinez v. Gen. Motors Corp., 2007 WL 1429632 (Mich. Ct. App. May 15, 2007) (Unpublished opinion)
6
Tenet Healthsystem Desert, Inc. v. Fortis Ins. Co., Inc., 520 F. Supp. 2d 1184 C.D. Cal. 2007)
7
Flying J Inc. v. TA Operating Corp., 2007 WL 2220581 (D. Utah July 30, 2007)
8
In re Maura, 842 N.Y.S.2d 851 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2007)
9
Glass v. Beer, 2007 WL 1456059 (E.D. Cal. May 17, 2007)
10
Hudson Global Res. Holdings, Inc. v. Hill, 2007 WL 1545678 (W.D. Pa. May 25, 2007)

Williams v. Armstrong, 2007 WL 1424552 (W.D. Mich. May 14, 2007)

Key Insight: District Court sustained plaintiff?s objection to magistrate judge?s discovery order to the extent that factual findings omitted consideration of an exhibit submitted with plaintiff?s motion, which constituted evidence of defendant?s past possession of email which should have been produced in response to a particular discovery request (the exhibit was an email that discussed at least one prior email which was not produced); court remanded to magistrate judge issue of whether to compel further response or production in response to that particular discovery request

Nature of Case: Prisoner asserted claims relating to prison’s Kosher Meal Program

Electronic Data Involved: Email

In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litig., 2007 WL 1827635 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2007)

Key Insight: Where, at the start of the litigation, parties agreed to production of ESI in a particular format (?TIFF? files subject to a scanning process known as ?OCR?), court declined to compel defendants to comply with amended Rule 34 for future document productions, commenting: ?An amendment to the civil rules-nearly two year after the filing of the lawsuit, and long after the parties established a system for propounding electronic discovery-does not justify the abdication of the parties’ agreement, especially given the security concerns raised by Defendants about maintaining the confidentiality of electronic documents. Of course, if the parties can stipulate to the production of some materials in native electronic format, they are free to do so. Otherwise, the Court orders that production of additional materials shall proceed in accordance with the parties’ prior agreement.?

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified ESI

Motown Record Co. v. DePietro, 2007 WL 1725604 (E.D. Pa. June 11, 2007)

Key Insight: Finding that defendant had destroyed her computer and modem equipment with knowledge of her duty to preserve relevant evidence and in an attempt to protect herself from plaintiffs’ claims, court declined to enter default judgment and would instead: (1) preclude her from offering certain evidence and arguments at trial, and (2) give an adverse inference instruction to the jury

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Individual defendant’s computer and cable modem

Omax Corp. v. Flow Int’l Corp., 2007 WL 1830631 (W.D. Wash. June 22, 2007)

Key Insight: Even if database was incomplete and potentially unhelpful, court found that plaintiff was nonetheless entitled to information contained in the database since it did have some value and was relevant to plaintiff?s damages case, and its production did not appear to involved undue cost or complexity

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Martinez v. Gen. Motors Corp., 2007 WL 1429632 (Mich. Ct. App. May 15, 2007) (Unpublished opinion)

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to sanction GM for destruction of “superfluous and irrelevant computer evidence” on computer hard drive, since the information on the hard drive would not have increased or decreased the probability that plaintiff was involved in sending the inappropriate emails at issue in the case, and emails had already been discovered

Nature of Case: Wrongful discharge

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive

Tenet Healthsystem Desert, Inc. v. Fortis Ins. Co., Inc., 520 F. Supp. 2d 1184 C.D. Cal. 2007)

Key Insight: Granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment, court drew adverse inference from plaintiff’s loss of records, “i.e., that the records from Mr. Wyatt’s May, 2002 hospital visit are unfavorable to Plaintiff and, therefore, suggest Mr. Wyatt had a pre-existing condition during the October and December, 2002 medical treatment,” as an appropriate sanction due to the prejudice their loss caused defendant in the litigation

Nature of Case: Medical provider sued insurer for failure to pay for services provided to insured

Electronic Data Involved: Medical records relating to insured’s earlier emergency room visit

Flying J Inc. v. TA Operating Corp., 2007 WL 2220581 (D. Utah July 30, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendant objected that requests for production of certain financial data sought to force them to create documents that did not exist, but did not assert that requested data was not readily accessible, and plaintiffs argued that they sought production of already-existing data (whether or not such data was stored in electronic form), court found that requests sought relevant information and ordered defendant ?to produce already-existing data, whether in raw or synthesized form,? responsive to the requests

Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Financial and sales data

In re Maura, 842 N.Y.S.2d 851 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2007)

Key Insight: Court ordered that non-party law firm’s hard drive be imaged, and that law firm (not plaintiff) would be entitled to select computer forensic expert to conduct cloning process; court further ordered parties to confer on details and set basic timeframe for cloning and review of material, and ruled that plaintiff would be responsible for costs associated with search and production

Nature of Case: Proceeding to determine the validity of a right of election

Electronic Data Involved: Law firm computer

Glass v. Beer, 2007 WL 1456059 (E.D. Cal. May 17, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendants submitted evidence under penalty of perjury explaining reasons why they were able to locate only two of the four requested videotapes despite three searches, and defendant submitted no evidence that defendants had tampered with evidence, that the tape was intentionally destroyed, or that defendants were lying, court denied motion to compel and for sanctions

Nature of Case: State prisoner asserted civil rights claims claiming use of excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Videotapes

Hudson Global Res. Holdings, Inc. v. Hill, 2007 WL 1545678 (W.D. Pa. May 25, 2007)

Key Insight: Granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion for TRO/preliminary injunction, court also ordered counsel to confer and suggest within ten days an agreeable method by which plaintiff, through its computer forensics expert or otherwise, may access and permanently delete or retrieve its information from defendant’s portable external hard drive and personal computer which were in court’s custody

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleged claims of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition against former employee

Electronic Data Involved: Business data; laptop and portable hard drive

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