Archive: December 1, 2008

1
J&M Assocs., Inc. v. Nat?l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 2008 WL 5102246 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2008)
2
Integrated Serv. Solutions, Inc. v. Rodman, 2008 WL 4791654 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2008)
3
Powell v. Sharpsburg, 2008 WL 5422577 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 25, 2008)
4
In re Fischer Advanced Composite Components AG, 2008 WL 5210839 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 11, 2008)
5
Overlap Inc. v. Alliance Bernstein Invs., Inc., 2008 WL 5780994 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 29, 2008)
6
U.S. v. Bunty, 2008 WL 2371211, (E.D. Pa. June 10, 2008)
7
Varkonyi v. State, 276 S.W. 3d 27 (Tex. App. 2008)
8
Ex parte Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 990 So.2d 355 (2008)
9
Washington v. State, 961 A.2d 1110 (Md. 2008)
10
Fharmacy Records v. Nassar, 572 F. Supp. 2d 869 (E.D. Mich. 2008)

J&M Assocs., Inc. v. Nat?l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 2008 WL 5102246 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff deleted potentially relevant emails despite a duty to preserve, court granted defendants access to plaintiff?s servers to perform electronic recovery of deleted emails; court ordered defendant to retain independent professional to perform recovery at defendants? expense and for recovered emails to be provided directly to plaintiff?s counsel for review and production

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted emails

Integrated Serv. Solutions, Inc. v. Rodman, 2008 WL 4791654 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2008)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of search ?hits? from non-party?s laptop where agreed upon neutral third party conducted search, where counsel reviewed hits and concluded none were relevant, and where plaintiff provided no showing of bad faith or indicia of unreliability; court offered plaintiff option to request report indicating methods utilized in search, broad description of documents hit, and confirmation of no evidence of wiping

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer files

Powell v. Sharpsburg, 2008 WL 5422577 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 25, 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendant willfully destroyed relevant work orders pursuant to its document retention policy but where defendant should have been aware of the relevance of the documents and the resulting duty to preserve, court ordered adverse inference in favor of plaintiff and prohibited defendants from introducing secondary evidence of contents of spoliated documents

Nature of Case: Title VII action for discriminatory discipline based on race

 

In re Fischer Advanced Composite Components AG, 2008 WL 5210839 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 11, 2008)

Key Insight: Citing its discretion pursuant to U.S.C. ? 1782, court declined to compel production of requested communications from parent corporation for use in foreign jurisdiction where court found the information sought was in the possession of a party to the action in the foreign jurisdiction and that to compel production of such information would be ?burdensome and duplicative?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and tortious intimidation (proceedings initiated in foreign jurisdiction)

 

Varkonyi v. State, 276 S.W. 3d 27 (Tex. App. 2008)

Key Insight: Appellate court found that pornographic video attached to an email from defendant was properly authenticated under Tex. R. Evid. 901(b)(4) where, considering the ?appearance, contents, substance and other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with the circumstances,? the video was found to be what it was purported to be and where, applying the ?reply letter doctrine? the video was considered to be genuine and admissible in light of the fact that it was sent in response to a message sent by the government inquiring about the video, among other things

Nature of Case: Promotion of or possession with intent to promote obscene material

Electronic Data Involved: Pornographic video attachment to email

Ex parte Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 990 So.2d 355 (2008)

Key Insight: Court denied (in part) motion for writ of mandamus to vacate trial court?s order compelling production of ?all documents regarding the relationship between Nationwide and its counsel? where Nationwide failed to show that the information was ?patently irrelevant,? as required, and where the court opined that the information was accessible through its counsel and was thus unpersuaded that production would be arduous; court granted motion (in part) and directed trial court to vacate order compelling production of all electronic communications with counsel where court found that communications occurring after denial of coverage were within period in which litigation was anticipated and were therefore privileged

Nature of Case: Breach of insurance contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI regarding relationship with counsel

Washington v. State, 961 A.2d 1110 (Md. 2008)

Key Insight: Court of Appeals reversed Special Court of Appeals and remanded case for new trial based on State?s failure to properly authenticate surveillance video where State entered video into evidence but provided no testimony as to ?the process used, the manner of the operation of the cameras, the reliability of authenticity of its images, or the chain of custody of the pictures?

Nature of Case: First degree assault and related offenses

Electronic Data Involved: Video Surveillance

Fharmacy Records v. Nassar, 572 F. Supp. 2d 869 (E.D. Mich. 2008)

Key Insight: Court declined to reconsider dismissal of plaintiffs? case as sanction for ?campaign of fraud? that included intentionally wiping data, ?losing? original CDs and tape recordings, and misrepresentations to the court where the court found plaintiff?s behavior willful and prejudicial and where lesser sanctions would not have sufficed and where plaintiffs? alleged ?new evidence? was also ?suspect?; dismissal affirmed on appeal (2010 WL 2294538)

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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