2008 – Page 13 – Electronic Discovery Law

Montgomery v. eTreppid Techs., LLC., 2008 WL 2277118 (D. Nev. May 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where neither party would be able to conclusively prove ownership of disputed technology without analysis of source code, court concluded that documents related to source code and other technology plaintiff claimed as trade secret were ?reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence? and ordered plaintiff to produce responsive documents and ESI

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conversion, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Source code and related technology

Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc., 2008 WL 3200822 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: District court overruled defendants’ objections to magistrate judge’s order compelling production of certain ESI, rejecting claim that requested discovery was unduly burdensome; although defendants claimed they had more than 1500 servers, court noted that discovery was limited to 67 specific web sites and defendants had offered no evidence to suggest that they could not narrow the number of servers on which responsive content might exist; court ordered parties to meet and confer to agree upon protocol for obtaining the requested discovery

Nature of Case: Contributory and vicarious trademark and copyright infringement claims against internet service providers who host third-party websites on their servers

Electronic Data Involved: Publicly-posted Internet content evidencing offers made of counterfeit Louis Vuitton merchandise and traffic logs evidencing the volume of underlying counterfeit activity, limited to 67 allegedly infringing websites identified by plaintiff

Lowery v. County of Riley, 2008 WL 3562061 (D. Kan. Aug. 12, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied defendants’ motion to stay all discovery pending resolution of not-yet-filed petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, set Rule 16(b) scheduling conference, directed parties to conduct Rule 26(f) planning conference, and instructed parties to familiarize themselves with 2006 e-discovery amendments to FRCP, review ESI guidelines posted on court’s Internet website, and become knowledgeable about their clients’ information management systems and their operation, including how information is stored and retrieved

Nature of Case: Coercion, failure to investigate, fabrication of evidence, and malicious prosecution

Electronic Data Involved: ESI generally

E.E.O.C. v. Beauty Enters., Inc., 2008 WL 3359252 (D. Conn. Aug. 8, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs argued that several BEI supervisors had testified they had not been instructed to preserve documents related to case, court agreed that defense counsel?s litigation hold letter was privileged and ordered BEI to disclose date on which letter was sent and names of recipients

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Letter from BEI’s counsel to BEI supervisors advising them to implement a litigation hold

Super Future Equities, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A., 2008 WL 3261095 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: For plaintiff?s and its principals? egregious discovery abuses and bad faith conduct, including intentional spoliation of ESI and willful deception and concealment, magistrate judge set out findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommended sanctions in form of adverse inference instruction and monetary sanctions representing all of defendants? fees and costs incurred in connection with sanctions motion; district court overruled plaintiff’s objections and adopted magistrate judge?s rulings

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, RICO violations, negligence, gross negligence and injunctive relief

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, DVD, various ESI

Mon River Towing, Inc. v. Indus. Terminal & Salvage Co., 2008 WL 2412946 (W.D. Pa. June 10, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Nothing that in its estimation, “‘a print-out of computer data’ is significantly different than the report requested here by Defendant or any ‘analyses’ of documents,” court ruled that Rule 34 does not require responding party to create or generate responsive materials in specific form requested by the moving party; however, to extent that party merely requested computer print-out of information at issue, such print-outs fell within bounds of Rule 34 and should be produced

Nature of Case: Negligence, lost profits and indemnification

Electronic Data Involved: Computer printouts

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Doe, 2008 WL 2949427 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs made prima facie showing of infringement, there was no other way to identify Doe defendant, and there was risk that ISP would destroy its logs prior to Rule 26(f) conference, court found that need for expedited discovery outweighed prejudice to defendant and granted plaintiffs? motion for leave to take immediate discovery

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement through use of peer-to-peer (“P2P”) networking

Electronic Data Involved: ISP logs; documents and ESI sufficient to identify defendant’s true name, current and permanent addresses and telephone numbers, email addresses, and Media Access Control addresses

Law Offices of Ben C. Martin LLP v. Sweet, 2008 WL 2045477 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where neutral expert could not testify, based on forensic search of Sweet?s computer, that Sweet or someone at his direction had intentionally destroyed subject email, and it appeared that most of expert?s report went beyond scope of his duties as neutral expert and was irrelevant to any issues in case, magistrate judge recommended that plaintiffs? motion for spoliation sanctions be denied and that certain portions of expert?s report be stricken; Report and Recommendation adopted by district court, 2008 WL 2130574 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2008)

Nature of Case: Dispute over fee owed to Martin and his firm as a result of settlement and verdict in medical malpractice case

Electronic Data Involved: Email sent by Martin via his Blackberry to Sweet confirming the terms of fee arrangement

Anaheim Gardens v. United States, 2008 WL 2043243 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court granted motion brought by plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 37(a)(2)(B), Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, and issued order compelling defendant to produce witness or witnesses who could fully testify about document retention practices and policies of HUD and actual steps taken to produce documents

Nature of Case: Owners of low-income housing who had received mortgage insurance from Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) brought action alleging regulatory taking

Electronic Data Involved: Document retention policies

St. Tammany Parish Hosp. Serv. Dist. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 2008 WL 728948 (E.D. La. Mar. 17, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff explained that earlier drafts of expert?s report were not ?destroyed,? but that expert merely saved different ?iterations? of report within same file on his computer until report was complete, and where there was no indication that drafts of report were edited or ?ghost-written? to support a predetermined outcome, court denied defense motion for spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Prior drafts of expert’s report

Archive - 2008