Archive - December 2009

1
Robert v. Bd. of County Comm?rs of Brown Count, Kan., 2009 WL 1362530 (D. Kan. May 14, 2009)
2
In re Atl. Marine Prop. Holding Co., Inc., 2009 WL 1211399 (S.D. Ala. Apr. 29, 2009)
3
Southeastern Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Brody, 2009 WL 997268 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2009)
4
Patterson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2009 WL 1107740 (D. Kan. Apr. 23, 2009)
5
In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., 2009 WL 959491 (D. Kan. Apr. 3, 2009)
6
Continental Group, Inc. v. KW Prop. Mgmt., 2009 WL 425945 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2009)
7
Schuler v. Invensys Bldg. Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 425821 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 20, 2009)
8
East Coast Brokers and Packers, Inc. v. Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc., 2009 WL 361281 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 9, 2009)
9
Grand River Enters. Six Nations, Ltd. v. King, 2009 WL 330213 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2009)
10
Grasso v. Bakko, 2009 WL 224022 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 29, 2009)

Robert v. Bd. of County Comm?rs of Brown Count, Kan., 2009 WL 1362530 (D. Kan. May 14, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendants could not produce a requested email because of damage to author?s and recipient?s computers but where defendants undertook significant effort to search for the email, including a search by the county?s Information Technology Director and inquiry to the County?s email provider about the email?s availability, and where defendant offered to make the author?s computer available for inspection at plaintiff?s expense, court declined plaintiff?s request to ?shift the cost of an independent computer expert? to defendants and denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of the email

Electronic Data Involved: Email

In re Atl. Marine Prop. Holding Co., Inc., 2009 WL 1211399 (S.D. Ala. Apr. 29, 2009)

Key Insight: Where court ordered company to obtain waivers from employees allowing their personal email providers to release certain communications for production but where the email providers indicated their inability to provide those communications, court declined to order adverse inference where there was no evidence to indicate company acted in bad faith or purposefully lost or destroyed the emails

Electronic Data Involved: Email from employees’ personal accounts

Southeastern Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Brody, 2009 WL 997268 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendants believed plaintiff failed to produce certain relevant electronic documents and later learned of plaintiff?s alleged failure to adequately search for such documents, court denied defendant?s motion to compel where defendants failed to bring the motion until after the close of discovery and failed to raise the issue at several pre-trial conferences and where plaintiff affirmatively represented it had produced all responsive documents

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Patterson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2009 WL 1107740 (D. Kan. Apr. 23, 2009)

Key Insight: Court indicated reluctance to intervene in discovery dispute regarding contents of back up tapes where parties failed to properly confer regarding electronic discovery but, where defendants offered to search back up tapes for relevant emails from two custodians on three specific dates, court ordered the search and prescribed search terms to employ; where the estimated labor to conduct the limited search of the back up tapes would not be excessive or unduly burdensome, court ordered defendant to bear cost

Electronic Data Involved: Back up tapes

In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., 2009 WL 959491 (D. Kan. Apr. 3, 2009)

Key Insight: Court denied defendants? motion for an order relieving them of their obligation to ?review and log documents created after the commencement of litigation relating to communications with attorneys about this lawsuit,? despite defendants arguments of extreme burden, where defendants offered no case law in support of their position , where not all documents created post litigation and involving an attorney would be protected from production as privileged, and where defendants made no effort to address the lesser burden of reviewing only potentially relevant email; sympathetic to defendants? arguments that logging each message would be burdensome, court permitted defendants to categorically describe privileged communications in log

Electronic Data Involved: Email communications created after commencement of litigation

Continental Group, Inc. v. KW Prop. Mgmt., 2009 WL 425945 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2009)

Key Insight: Where parties failed to establish filtering protocol to segregate privileged materials from portable devices because of a disagreement as to the meaning of the court?s prior order, court ordered production of images of defendant?s portable devices to plaintiff prior to performing a privilege review but held that such production would not result in waiver and indicated its belief that no prejudice to defendant?s would result, despite acknowledgement that plaintiff would have ?a few days to view the images which may contain privileged material? prior to defendants identification of privileged material

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI on portable devices

Schuler v. Invensys Bldg. Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 425821 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 20, 2009)

Key Insight: Finding emails or portions of emails withheld were subject to protection by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel their production; court?s reasoning included discussion of the propriety of withholding email headers and held that redaction of email headers was proper where such headers provided information including: ?the topic of discussion between certain people, the identities of those people, and the time at which the discussion took place.?

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

East Coast Brokers and Packers, Inc. v. Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc., 2009 WL 361281 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 9, 2009)

Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s motion for sanctions arising from plaintiff?s alleged spoliation of ?pack data? (related to the number of tomatoes picked and packaged) where the alleged spoliation consisted of plaintiff?s entry of additional information to the ?pack data? following commencement of litigation but where the court found that no spoliation had occurred because the source of the newly added information was preserved, because the data was ?added as opposed to changed,? and because defendant had the right of cross examination at trial

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Grand River Enters. Six Nations, Ltd. v. King, 2009 WL 330213 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2009)

Key Insight: District Court affirmed denial of plaintiff?s motion for an order compelling the production of ?econometric data? previously produced to the FTC, and the computer programs used to calculate it, because the data was of limited relevance, because the risk created by disclosure of the sensitive information outweighed the limited benefit to plaintiffs, and because the calculations for which the data was necessary had already been performed in another case and thus were available from an alternative source

Electronic Data Involved: Econometric data and computer programs

Grasso v. Bakko, 2009 WL 224022 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 29, 2009)

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel inspection of plaintiff?s computer, despite plaintiff?s conflicting statements regarding the existence of a contract in 2005 and defendant?s resulting belief that plaintiff created the contract on her computer years later, where court determined the inspection would be unduly burdensome and where plaintiff carried the burden to prove the contract existed in 2005, not defendant

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

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