March 2010 – Electronic Discovery Law

Despite Malaysian Blocking Statute, Court Compels Third Party’s Production of Foreign Banking Information Pursuant to Subpoena

Mar 17 2010

Gucci Amer., Inc. v. Curveal Fashion, 2010 WL 808639 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2010)

Plaintiff sought to compel the production of documents and information regarding defendants’ Malaysian bank accounts pursuant to a subpoena served on United Overseas Bank’s New York Agency (“UOB NY”). UOB NY was not a party to the underlying action, nor was its parent company. Despite substantial evidence that production of the requested information was prohibited by Malaysian law and that violation of the law could subject a person to civil and criminal penalties, the court concluded that compliance with the subpoena was warranted and ordered UOB NY to produce the information within two weeks.

Citing First Amendment, Court Denies Motion to Compel Production of Information Sufficient to Identify Anonymous Discussion Board Users

Mar 17 2010

McVicker v. King, 2010 WL 786275 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 3, 2010)

In this suit arising from claims of unlawful and discriminatory termination, plaintiff, a former employee of the Borough, sought to compel a third-party owner of an internet discussion board to produce information sufficient to identify anonymous authors of certain, relevant posts. Plaintiff argued the identities of the posters may be relevant to impeach defendants’ testimony regarding when the determination to terminate plaintiff was first discussed. Citing First Amendment considerations, the court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel.

Do You Comply with the New Massachusetts Information Security Regulation?

Mar 11 2010

By Bruce H. Nielson, K&L Gates Partner, Washington D.C.

What Does the Regulation Require?

Every business that “owns or licenses personal information” about a Massachusetts resident must “develop, implement, and maintain” a comprehensive written information security program (WISP). “Owns or licenses” is defined as “receives, stores, maintains, processes, or otherwise has access to personal information in connection with the provision of goods or services or in connection with employment.” “Personal information” (PI) means first name (or initial) and last name combined with a Social Security number, driver’s license or state-issued ID card number, or financial account or credit or debit card number (with or without any required password, security or access code, or personal identification number).

The WISP must contain administrative, technical and physical safeguards for PI that are “appropriate to (a) the size, scope and type of business . . .; (b) the amount of resources available . . .; (c) the amount of stored data; and (d) the need for security and confidentiality” of the PI.

Plan Ahead: Proposed Amendments to Rule 26 Would Extend Work-Product Protection

Mar 04 2010

One of the great things about the current rule-making process is the ability to see change on the horizon and adapt accordingly. This year, absent any unforeseen objection or delay, Rule 26 will be amended to extend the scope of the work-product doctrine to encompass draft expert reports and most communications between experts and counsel. Currently, the proposed amendment (and all proposed rule amendments, for that matter) is being considered by the Supreme Court. Pursuant to statute, the Court must transmit prescribed amendments to Congress by May 1st. Thereafter, absent legislation to reject, modify, or defer the rules, the prescribed amendments will take effect as a matter of law on December 1st.

Court Provides Detailed Analysis of Law of Spoliation, Orders Adverse Inference Instruction, Monetary Sanctions for Intentional Spoliation of ESI

Mar 02 2010

Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. v. Cammarata, 688 F. Supp. 2d 598 (S.D. Tex. 2010)

For intentional spoliation, the court declined to order terminating sanctions but ordered an adverse inference instruction and for defendants to pay plaintiff’s attorneys fees and costs.

In this litigation arising from accusations of misappropriation of trade secrets, violation of non-compete agreements, and related claims, plaintiff accused defendants of spoliating relevant evidence, including electronically stored information (“ESI”). The court found that defendants had indeed participated in intentional spoliation of evidence, including failing to preserve relevant ESI, manually deleting ESI, and destroying or giving away laptops containing relevant ESI, among other things. The court nonetheless declined to grant plaintiff’s request for terminating sanctions because plaintiff was unable to show a sufficiently high degree of resulting prejudice. Specifically, the court found that because defendants had produced a large volume of evidence despite their spoliation of other ESI, because plaintiff had obtained some of the deleted evidence from other sources, and because evidence revealed that some of the deleted records would have been favorable to defendants, the resulting prejudice was “far from irreparable” – the necessary showing to justify terminating sanctions: “The sanction of dismissal or default judgment is appropriate only if the spoliation or destruction of evidence resulted in “irreparable prejudice” and no lesser sanction would suffice.” [Citation omitted.]

Archive - March 2010