Archive - December 1, 2008

1
Matthews v. Baumhaft, 2008 WL 2224126 (E.D. Mich. May 29, 2008)
2
St. Cyr v. Flying J, Inc., 2008 WL 2097611 (M.D. Fla. May 16, 2008)
3
Robinson v. Motivation Excellence, Inc., 2008 WL 2096957 (W.D. Pa. May 16, 2008)
4
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tedford, 2008 WL 2080930 (N.D. Miss. May 13, 2008)
5
Howard v. Rustin, 2008 WL 2008937 (W.D. Pa. May 2, 2008)
6
Binary Semantics Ltd. v. Minitab, Inc., 2008 WL 2020362 (M.D. Pa. May 5, 2008)
7
Outside the Box Innovations, LLC v. Travel Caddy, Inc., 2007 WL 5155945 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 27, 2008)
8
Monson v. Albertson’s Inc., 2008 WL 1925134 (D. Utah Apr. 30, 2008)
9
Maxpower Corp. v. Abraham, 2008 WL 1925138 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 29, 2008)
10
Eckhardt v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2008 WL 1995310 (W.D.N.C. May 6, 2008)

Matthews v. Baumhaft, 2008 WL 2224126 (E.D. Mich. May 29, 2008)

Key Insight: District judge upheld as neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law magistrate judge?s order for forensic imaging of defendants’ computers, where defendants had refused to provide documents plaintiff requested, providing only “sample” appraisals, and where relevant appraisals and software used to generate appraisals resided in computer and were relevant to parties’ claims and defenses

Nature of Case: Fraud, RICO and breach of fiduciary duty claims

Electronic Data Involved: Appraisals and software used to generate appraisals

St. Cyr v. Flying J, Inc., 2008 WL 2097611 (M.D. Fla. May 16, 2008)

Key Insight: Court concluded that FRCP 26(5)(B) applied not only to ESI but to paper documents as well, and set out lengthy quote from advisory committee’s note; court denied plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of plaintiff’s communications with expert, finding that plaintiff had waived work product protection by voluntarily producing the documents at expert’s deposition

Nature of Case: Negligence and strict liability

Electronic Data Involved: Letter and email produced in hard copy form

Robinson v. Motivation Excellence, Inc., 2008 WL 2096957 (W.D. Pa. May 16, 2008)

Key Insight: Because court ruled that plaintiff?s claims were without merit and granted defendant?s motion to dismiss, with prejudice, court concluded there was no need for expert to access laptop?s hard drive and that defendant was entitled to return of its property; court ordered plaintiff to return laptop and other property to defendant former employer, and directed defendant to ?preserve, maintain, and protect all such property and things in their present state from destruction, modification and/or alteration? until the action was finalized

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Employer-provided laptop

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tedford, 2008 WL 2080930 (N.D. Miss. May 13, 2008)

Key Insight: Ruling on various disputed discovery requests, court overruled insurer?s overbroad and unduly burdensome objections to interrogatory seeking information about similar claims made against insurer within last ten years, and agreed with defendant that it was not necessary to rely on computer retrieval of relevant information, but on information provided by employees, and that there may be less expensive means of determining the existence of such information: ?For example, an e-mail to all Liberty Mutual employees asking if they recall any such claims or cases in the last ten years is a simple, inexpensive means of discovering whether any claims were ever made in Mississippi. Liberty Mutual has a duty to at least attempt to determine if information responsive to this interrogatory exists, if not by computerized search of files (a general search of a computer data base surely would be a start), then at least by inquiry of employees who may have relevant, discoverable information. At a minimum, a good faith effort is required.?

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Information regarding similar claims made against insurer

Howard v. Rustin, 2008 WL 2008937 (W.D. Pa. May 2, 2008)

Key Insight: Court sustained objection to request seeking “[a]ny and all electronically stored information, documents, reports, logs and/or memorandums contained in any and all of the electronic databases and/or computer systems of Allegheny County Jail, Allegheny Correctional Health Services, Inc., Bruce Dixon, and Dana Phillips” as overbroad, unreasonably cumulative, and unduly burdensome, since the request imposed no limits (time or otherwise) on ESI requested; court allowed plaintiffs to revise request to include reasonable limitations and serve it by certain date

Nature of Case: Wrongful death

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified ESI

Outside the Box Innovations, LLC v. Travel Caddy, Inc., 2007 WL 5155945 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 27, 2008)

Key Insight: Ruling on a number of discovery issues, court found that defendant?s production of electronic documents was proper, notwithstanding fact that production included numerous non-working files as well as unresponsive and offensive content; court noted that inappropriate and inoperable files represented small percentage of total documents produced, that defendant appeared to have been diligent in attempting to minimize such problems, and that ?it is likely that all electronic document production carries some possibility of technical difficulties?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified electronic files

Monson v. Albertson’s Inc., 2008 WL 1925134 (D. Utah Apr. 30, 2008)

Key Insight: Resolving a number of discovery issues, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of emails and other stored electronic data concerning plaintiff, stating: ?Plaintiff’s bald assertion that there must be more e-mails than the 100 already produced is not persuasive to the court.?

Nature of Case: Gender discrimination, harassment, retaliation and constructive discharge

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

Maxpower Corp. v. Abraham, 2008 WL 1925138 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 29, 2008)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motions for preliminary injunction and for sanctions, where evidence that defendants had improperly accessed plaintiffs? computers was weak, evidence from forensic inspection of defendants? laptops was ambiguous, and ?most damning? piece of evidence was one defendant?s use of a drive cleaner on laptop after being served with summons and before laptop could be examined; court found that defendant’s proffered explanation for using the drive cleaner was not ?particularly implausible? and observed that plaintiffs could renew sanctions request if evidence later supported it

Nature of Case: Company asserted various claims against former employees, including misappropriation of trade secrets, intentional interference with prospective business opportunity, breach of loyalty and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Employer-provided laptops; other ESI

Eckhardt v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2008 WL 1995310 (W.D.N.C. May 6, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff established through deposition testimony that discoverable documents existed which had not been produced, but court found no bad faith, court declined to give adverse inference instruction and instead allowed plaintiff to seek missing documents from backup tapes and to corroborate substance of any missing documents from witnesses where documents themselves could be recovered

Nature of Case: Alleged violations of Americans with Disabilities Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email; backup tapes

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