Archive - December 2010

1
In re Apple and AT & TM Antitrust Litig., 2010 WL 1240925 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2010)
2
Field Day, LLC v. County of Suffolk, 2010 WL 1286622 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2010)
3
State v. Johnson, 2010 WL 1424369 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2010)
4
Universal Del., Inc. v. Comdata Corp., 2010 WL 1381225 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2010)
5
Soc?y of Prof?l Eng?g Employees in Aerospace, IFPTE Local 2001, AFL-CIO v. Boeing Co., 2010 WL 1141269 (D. Kan. Mar. 22, 2010)
6
Potenza v. Gonzales, 2010 WL 890959 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2010)
7
Bellinger v. Astrue, 2010 WL 1270003 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2010)
8
State v. Huggett, 783 N.W.2d 675 (Wis. App. Ct. 2010)
9
Crown Castle USA, Inc. v. Fred A. Nudd Corp., 2010 WL 1286366 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2010)
10
Covad Commc?n Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 267 F.R.D. 14(D.D.C. 2010)

In re Apple and AT & TM Antitrust Litig., 2010 WL 1240925 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2010)

Key Insight: Court declined to granted motion to compel production of additional source code where plaintiffs offered only speculation regarding the source code?s relevance and thus failed to meet their burden to establish the source code was ?relevant and necessary?, and where plaintiffs? experts had made no effort to review the source code already in their possession

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Field Day, LLC v. County of Suffolk, 2010 WL 1286622 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2010)

Key Insight: Court declined to find County employees culpable for spoliation of ESI, but ordered monetary sanctions against the County for negligently failing to adequately preserve ESI and declined harsher sanctions where many documents were produced in hard copy and thus the resulting prejudice was unclear; court?s analysis of culpability included recognition that the alleged spoliation occurred in 2003-2004, during a time when the law of preservation of ESI was not fully developed

Nature of Case: Claims arising from denial of mass gathering permit

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

State v. Johnson, 2010 WL 1424369 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2010)

Key Insight: Appellate court affirmed trial court?s dismissal of charges related to defendant?s alleged possession of child pornography where FBI refused to follow the trial court?s order to produce a copy of the relevant hard drive to defendant?s expert, pursuant to the terms of a protective order, and where defendant made a ?substantial showing? that reproduction of the drive was required for the effective investigation of his defense because the FBI?s proffered solution of allowing defendant?s expert to analyze the drive at the FBI?s offices did not properly address defendant?s concerns about the privacy of his expert?s work or the deprivation of the expert?s references and resource which were not available at the proposed location

Nature of Case: Sexual exploitation of a minor

Electronic Data Involved: Hard Drive

Universal Del., Inc. v. Comdata Corp., 2010 WL 1381225 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2010)

Key Insight: Where third-party (and former defendant) signed stipulation to preserve and produce ESI as if still a party to the litigation and later sought reimbursement for the review and production of data in a particular database, court ordered a database be created comprised of the four custodians at issue, that plaintiff pay $4085 to the vendor as a ?start-up fee? (pursuant to their agreement to do so), and that plaintiff and third-party split the remaining costs of creating the database, but ordered third-party to bear the costs of its own review prior to production

Nature of Case: Antitrist litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Soc?y of Prof?l Eng?g Employees in Aerospace, IFPTE Local 2001, AFL-CIO v. Boeing Co., 2010 WL 1141269 (D. Kan. Mar. 22, 2010)

Key Insight: Court denied Boeing?s motion for protective order requiring the return of the privileged email at issue where the email was disclosed by Boeing to a third-party buyer of its ?commercial facility? when Boeing made a business decision to ease transition to new ownership by temporarily continuing to provide email services to the buyer?s new employees (who were former employee?s of Boeing) by allowing them to use and access their email accounts on Boeing?s servers (which contained the message at issue), and thus did not take reasonable steps to protect the privilege; objections to this opinion were overruled by the District Court Judge on Aug. 5, 2010: 2010 WL 3083536

Nature of Case: Benefits and pension issues arising from sale of commercial facility

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Potenza v. Gonzales, 2010 WL 890959 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2010)

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs? counsel admitted he had been in possession of the videotape of plaintiff?s interview with police following his arrest but that despite a diligent search he could not find it and could offer no explanation for why, court found spoliation sanctions were warranted, noting that the second circuit has recognized ?simple negligence? as a sufficiently culpable state of mind, and ordered an adverse inference; court rejected plaintiff?s argument that defendant should be sanctioned for failing to preserve the original despite plaintiff?s request to do so where plaintiff offered no evidence in support of their claim that defendant ever had control of the tape or played a role in its destruction

Nature of Case: Violation of Fourth Amendment right to be free from false arrest, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape of police interview

Bellinger v. Astrue, 2010 WL 1270003 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2010)

Key Insight: In an opinion addressing a number of discovery issues, the court declined to compel production of email in native format where defendant provided a ?reasonable explanation? for why it chose to produce in hard copy, namely, because ?they could more easily be reviewed for responsiveness and privilege?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

State v. Huggett, 783 N.W.2d 675 (Wis. App. Ct. 2010)

Key Insight: Where police confiscated cell phones from the defendant and a key witness which contained highly relevant and exculpatory messages but failed to preserve them, court reasoned that ?[b]y creating an expectation of preservation [in the mind of the defendant], the State became responsible for ensuring that it occurred? and that its failure to do so deprived the defendant of due process such that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate

Nature of Case: Charges arising from shooting of intruder, allegedly in self defense

Electronic Data Involved: Voice mail and text messages on cell phones

Crown Castle USA, Inc. v. Fred A. Nudd Corp., 2010 WL 1286366 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2010)

Key Insight: Court found destruction or loss of documents resulting from failure to issue a litigation hold grossly negligent but declined to recommend dismissal or an adverse inference where the record did not reveal actual or likely prejudice and held open defendant?s option to renew their request following re-depositions of the relevant custodian, the cost of which plaintiff was to bear; for the late production of responsive documents, court recommended additional depositions and for plaintiff to bear the cost and for plaintiff to bear defendants? costs associated with the instant motions; magistrate judge?s recommendations were affirmed by the district court in their entirety 2010 WL 4027780 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2010)

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged defects in cellular towers designed and manufactured by defendant

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Covad Commc?n Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 267 F.R.D. 14(D.D.C. 2010)

Key Insight: Court declined to compel production of non-email ESI in native format where defendant previously produced the information sought in hard copy, reasoning that native production is not required by the rules and that the documents, previously produced in hard copy, were in a sufficiently usable format absent a showing that the metadata would ?yield an answer that the hard copy will not?; court also recognized obligation to seek ?just, speedy, and inexpensive? adjudication and to limit burdensome discovery where defendant represented significant hardship to re-produce in native format

Nature of Case: Misappropriation and conversion of trade secret information

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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