Archive: December 1, 2010

1
MVB Mortgage Corp. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 582641 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 11, 2010)
2
Sunbeam Prods., Inc. v. Homedics, Inc., No. 08-cv-376-slc, 2010 WL 2571983 (W.D. Wis. June 21, 2010)
3
CE Design Ltd. v. Cy?s Crabhouse North, Inc., 2010 WL 3327876 (N.D. Ill Aug. 23, 2010)
4
State v. Berke, 992 A.2d 1290 (Me. 2010)
5
Govan Brown & Assoc., Ltd. v. Does 1&2, 2010 WL 3076295 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2010)
6
Lorentz v. Sunshine Health Prods., Inc., 2010 WL 1856265 (S.D. Fla. May 10, 2010)
7
United States v. Salyer, Cr. No. S-10-0061 LKK (GGH), 2010 WL 3036444 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2010)
8
Ruise v. State, 43 So.3d 885 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Sept. 7, 2010)
9
Voom HD Holdings LLC v. Echostar Satellite LLC, No. 600292/08 (N.Y. Sup. Nov. 3, 2010)
10
Stearman v. State, No. 29 A02-1002-CR-214, 2010 WL 59827 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2010)

MVB Mortgage Corp. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 582641 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 11, 2010)

Key Insight: Answering question of whether inadvertent disclosure of privileged information to testifying expert resulted in waiver of privilege, court ?conclude[ed] that a claim of inadvertent waiver cannot be used to withhold information from opposing counsel once it has found its way into the expert?s hands ? however unintentional that may be.?

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Sunbeam Prods., Inc. v. Homedics, Inc., No. 08-cv-376-slc, 2010 WL 2571983 (W.D. Wis. June 21, 2010)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for review of costs, including costs related to forensic recovery of electronic data, where the court found that the costs requested by defendant were ?authorized by statute and were reasonably and necessary to the litigation?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

 

CE Design Ltd. v. Cy?s Crabhouse North, Inc., 2010 WL 3327876 (N.D. Ill Aug. 23, 2010)

Key Insight: Court vacated prior order designating contents of relevant hard drive confidential where good cause was not established by the proffered reasons for the designation; addressing defendant?s motion to disqualify plaintiff?s counsel and bar its expert for failure to timely supplement discovery by producing a relevant hard drive, the court ruled that defendant failed to offer new information that would justify such a sanction (because this issue was previously considered) where the newly-discovered documents (on the late-produced hard drive) did not change the court?s analysis as to numerosity and certification of the class and where the expert was given the opportunity to supplement his report

Nature of Case: Violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act

 

State v. Berke, 992 A.2d 1290 (Me. 2010)

Key Insight: Videotape depicting defendant abusing his victims was properly authenticated for admission as evidence pursuant to M.R. Evid. 901 where defendant was repeatedly depicted in the tape, where ?the largely sequential nature of the events depicted? supported the inference that the tape was not tampered with, and where the state introduced testimony from the victim and her family to establish that the victims in the tape were the victims referenced in the indictment

Nature of Case: Criminal indictment for sexual exploitation of a minor and related charges

 

Govan Brown & Assoc., Ltd. v. Does 1&2, 2010 WL 3076295 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2010)

Key Insight: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ? 1782, court granted in part plaintiff?s application to conduct discovery in a foreign proceeding and ordered that plaintiff may serve upon Google, Inc. a subpoena seeking the IP address associated with an account from which an allegedly defamatory email was sent, but denied the application to the extent it sought to serve a subpoena for information related to an email sent from a separate account that merely read, ?Have a nice day? and which could not form the basis for a cause of action under the laws of Canda; to the extent the IP addresses for the two email accounts was the same, however, Google would be allowed to disclosure that information

United States v. Salyer, Cr. No. S-10-0061 LKK (GGH), 2010 WL 3036444 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2010)

Key Insight: Acknowledging the general rule that the Government has no obligation to specifically identify Brady/Giglio material that has been disclosed to a defendant, the court noted its authority to require identification nonetheless and, considering the volume of the government?s disclosure, the individual defendant?s detention awaiting trial, the small size of his defense team, the lack of parallel civil litigation, and the lack of corporate assistance in identifying evidence, ordered the government to identify Brady material already disclosed and in subsequent disclosures

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Ruise v. State, 43 So.3d 885 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Sept. 7, 2010)

Key Insight: Court held GPS data was properly admitted as a business record where the state presented testimony of an employee for the GPS monitoring company who explained how the monitoring system worked and the testimony of appellant?s probation officer who explained how he accessed the GPS database and printed the exhibits introduced, and where the probation officer had previously tested the accuracy of the GPS system by taking appellant to different locations and checking the accuracy of the monitoring data

Nature of Case: Probation revocation

Electronic Data Involved: GPS monitoring data

Voom HD Holdings LLC v. Echostar Satellite LLC, No. 600292/08 (N.Y. Sup. Nov. 3, 2010)

Key Insight: Court ordered adverse inference for grossly negligent failure to preserve where defendant?s duty to preserve was triggered by its awareness that its decision to terminate an agreement with plaintiff would trigger litigation but where defendant failed to impose a litigation hold until after plaintiff?s complaint was filed and failed to discontinue its automatic deletion of emails which resulted in the loss of relevant emails; court?s analysis included discussion of prior sanctions against defendant for failure to preserve in Broccoli v. Echostar Commc’ns Corp., 229 F.R.D. 506 (D. Md. 2005)

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Stearman v. State, No. 29 A02-1002-CR-214, 2010 WL 59827 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2010)

Key Insight: Court held transcript of chat cut and pasted into word document in its entirety was properly authenticated where the officer testified that the transcript was a ?true and accurate and full and complete copy of the exact chat [he] had with the defendant?; Best Evidence Rule was satisfied where ?any printout or other output readable by sight shown to reflect the date accurately is an ?original?? in the context of information stored in a computer and where there was no evidence that the original messages, which were removed from the computer when the instant message program was removed, were erased in bad faith

Nature of Case: Solicitation of a minor

Electronic Data Involved: Printed transcripts of instant messages

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