Archive - 2008

1
Wells v. Berger, Newmark & Fenchel, P.C., 2008 WL 4365972 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2008)
2
Cartwright v. Viking Indus., Inc., 2008 WL 4283614 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2008)
3
In re Riverside Healthcare, Inc., 393 B.R. 422 (Bankr. M.D. La. 2008)
4
Fausto v. Credigy Servs. Corp., 251 F.R.D. 436 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2008)
5
Barrett v. Ambient Pressure Diving, Ltd., 2008 WL 4280360 (D.N.H. Sept. 16, 2008) (Unpublished)
6
Wong v. Thomas, 2008 WL 4224923 (D.N.J. Sept. 10, 2008) (Not for Publication)
7
Kinexus Representative LLC v. Advent Software, Inc., 2008 WL 4379607 (Del. Ch. Sept. 22, 2008) (Unpublished)
8
Willeford v. Toys ?R? US-Del., Inc., 895 N.E.2d 83 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)
9
White v. Graceland Coll. Ctr. for Prof’l Dev. & Lifelong Learning, Inc., 2008 WL 4427269 (D. Kan. Sept. 25, 2008)
10
Nucor Corp. v. Bell, 2008 WL 4442571 (D.S.C. Jan. 11, 2008)

Wells v. Berger, Newmark & Fenchel, P.C., 2008 WL 4365972 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2008)

Key Insight: Granting in part motion in limine seeking sanctions for spoliation of evidence where defendants did nothing to preserve key player?s computer files but instead allowed him to continue using computer without monitoring, copying, reviewing or securing potentially relevant information, and key player admitted deleting potentially relevant files, court set out statement that would be read to jury concerning defendants? failure to preserve evidence and prohibited defendants from offering any argument or comments suggesting that lack of pornographic emails in evidence supported a finding that such emails never existed or were never shown to plaintiff

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment, constructive discharge, emotional distress

Electronic Data Involved: Pornographic emails, hard drive

Cartwright v. Viking Indus., Inc., 2008 WL 4283614 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2008)

Key Insight: Where parties agreed to production of database materials but failed to reach mutual understanding regarding need for privilege log, court held that failure to produce log due to misunderstanding did not waive privilege; court rejected argument that providing log would be unduly burdensome and expensive and ordered production of privilege log within two weeks

Nature of Case: Class action product liability litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Database

In re Riverside Healthcare, Inc., 393 B.R. 422 (Bankr. M.D. La. 2008)

Key Insight: Where supplier?s computer system routinely deleted email after 60-90 days in the regular course of business absent a request to preserve, and emails could not be recovered from particular individual?s work station because hard drive repeatedly failed and had been replaced three times, and where liquidating supervisor could not show that deletion of email was intentional, prejudicial, or violated any duty to preserve, court found that record did not support a finding of spoliation and denied liquidating supervisor?s request for adverse inference

Nature of Case: Adverse proceeding in bankruptcy brought by liquidating supervisor against supplier/creditor of debtor

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Fausto v. Credigy Servs. Corp., 251 F.R.D. 436 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2008)

Key Insight: Denying plaintiffs? request to delay production of recorded telephone conversations until after depositions of defendant debt collector’s employees had occurred, court rejected plaintiffs’ unsupported and conclusory argument that witnesses would tailor their testimony to match recordings (thus negating impeachment value); court noted that equity and fairness weighed in favor of production to allow defendant an equal opportunity to prepare

Nature of Case: Consumers alleged violations of federal and state debt collection laws

Electronic Data Involved: Recorded telephone conversations between plaintiffs and debt collectors employed by defendant

Barrett v. Ambient Pressure Diving, Ltd., 2008 WL 4280360 (D.N.H. Sept. 16, 2008) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Sanction of dismissal not warranted where data stored on dive computers was lost when it could no longer be downloaded after one year, since plaintiff did not engage in deliberate destruction, she did not know whether data was helpful or hurtful to her case because she had not seen it, and she had not known that data would automatically become unavailable for download after one year; defendant?s entitlement to alternative relief to be decided at trial; court further granted plaintiff?s motion for summary judgment dismissing defendant?s counterclaims for ?fraud on the court? and ?spoliation of evidence?

Nature of Case: Negligence, product liability, wrongful death

Electronic Data Involved: Dive information stored on VR3 dive computers

Wong v. Thomas, 2008 WL 4224923 (D.N.J. Sept. 10, 2008) (Not for Publication)

Key Insight: Where defendants were able to produce responsive emails from plaintiff?s email account, but could produce no other emails from accounts of various defendants or from Department of State due to routine ?purging? procedures that included closing individuals’ email accounts, deletion of files from their office computers after they leave employment, and routine deletion of files from State’s email servers, court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions finding that defendants had acted in good faith and that plaintiff had not met threshold showing of relevancy of any specific evidence that was lost

Nature of Case: Discrimination based on race and national origin, wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Willeford v. Toys ?R? US-Del., Inc., 895 N.E.2d 83 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)

Key Insight: Appellate court upheld order of contempt and declined to expand protective order to keep confidential names and contact information of persons involved in falling merchandise accidents where defendant?s challenges of discovery rulings resulted in five year delay, were not in good faith, and information sought to be protected was not the sort that should be covered by a protective order

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Nucor Corp. v. Bell, 2008 WL 4442571 (D.S.C. Jan. 11, 2008)

Key Insight: Where parties submitted competing expert testimony in support of and in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions, court also considered and ruled upon parties’ cross-motions to exclude their opponent’s computer forensics expert under FRE 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharma., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and computer fraud and abuse

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop and USB flash-drive device

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