Archive - 2010

1
Trickey v. Kaman Indus. Techs. Corp., 2010 WL 5067421 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 6, 2010)
2
In re Air Cargo Shipping Servs. Antitrust Litig., 2010 WL 2976220 (E.D.N.Y. July 23, 2010)
3
Moore v. Shands Jacksonville Med. Ctr., 2010 WL 5137417 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2010)
4
Chasten v. Franklin, 2010 WL 4065606 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2010)
5
DeGeer v. Gillis, 2010 WL 5096563 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 8, 2010)
6
United States v. Hornback, 2010 WL 4628944 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 8, 2010)
7
United States v. Knowles, 623 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2010)
8
HR Tech., Inc. v. Imura Int. U.S.A., Inc., 2010 WL 4792388 (D. Kan. Nov. 17, 2010)
9
Daugherty v. Murphy, 2010 WL 4877720 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 23, 2010)
10
Sofaer Global Hedge Fund v. Brightpoint, Inc, 2010 WL 4701419 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 12, 2010)

Trickey v. Kaman Indus. Techs. Corp., 2010 WL 5067421 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 6, 2010)

Key Insight: Where, in response to discovery requests, defendant?s employees manually selected and preserved all potentially relevant documents that were on their computers, in the live database, or archived but where defendant did not create a mirror image of its email server or other data, the court indicated its ?concern? but ?[could not] say that [defendant?s] efforts under the circumstances were sanctionable?, and noted that ?critically, plaintiff has not made spoliation claims? and that defendant had already attempted to remedy plaintiff?s concerns by hiring a forensic expert to examine its data (including deleted data) for relevant information

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

In re Air Cargo Shipping Servs. Antitrust Litig., 2010 WL 2976220 (E.D.N.Y. July 23, 2010)

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel production of ESI from South Africa, despite the country?s strict blocking statute, where the information was relevant, the request was sufficiently narrow and not shown to be burdensome, the US interest in enforcing its antitrust laws trumped South Africa?s enforcement of their blocking statute, there was no evidence of hardship to the producing party absent an unsubstantiated threat of sanctions, and where there was no alternative source from which to obtain the information

Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI in foreign jurisdiction

Moore v. Shands Jacksonville Med. Ctr., 2010 WL 5137417 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2010)

Key Insight: Where, absent specification of the format of production from either party, defendant produced video surveillance footage in what it considered a ?reasonably usable? format which required particular software for viewing, and where that software was available for free download on the internet, the court indicated it was ?not sympathetic? to plaintiff?s claims of undue burden as to the downloading the software and found that defendants had produced the video in a reasonably usable form

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

Chasten v. Franklin, 2010 WL 4065606 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2010)

Key Insight: Court quashed subpoena served upon Yahoo! for the production of emails from defendant?s account where the Stored Communications Act generally prohibits such disclosure absent a specifically-enumerated exception and where subpoena in a civil action is not such an exception

Nature of Case: Claims arising from prisoner’s death

Electronic Data Involved: Emails from defendant’s Yahoo! account

DeGeer v. Gillis, 2010 WL 5096563 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 8, 2010)

Key Insight: Court ordered third-party to conduct additional searching for ESI and for counsel to meet and confer in person to determine the proper scope of the search, search terms, etc. and ordered that the costs of future discovery be split, except with respect to the third party?s search of its former CEO?s data, where that CEO had a practice of deleting email on a daily basis to avoid discovery

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with business expectancy, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, backup tapes

United States v. Hornback, 2010 WL 4628944 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 8, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant?s expert was offered the opportunity to examine the seized computer in a private, unmonitored room as often as necessary and to consult with defendant by phone during the examination, but where simultaneous internet access was not provided, the court found that ?ample opportunity? for inspection had been provided and denied defendant?s motion to compel an altered version of the hard drive with actual photographs removed

Nature of Case: Possession of child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

United States v. Knowles, 623 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2010)

Key Insight: Where, ?in order to admit physical evidence, the possibility of misidentification or alteration must be ?eliminated, not absolutely, but as a matter of reasonably probability?? and where the authenticity of the DVD showed at trial (which was a copy of a copy of the original videotape) was supported in various ways, including the testimony of a witness who had viewed the content of all copies of the DVD and original tape that the content was the same, the testimony of the agent responsible for creating the copy used in the courtroom, and testimony from other witnesses that the content of the tape depicted actual events, the court determined that the trial court did not err by admitting the DVD into evidence and affirmed defendant?s conviction

Nature of Case: Sexual exploitation of minor

Electronic Data Involved: DVD admitted into evidence

HR Tech., Inc. v. Imura Int. U.S.A., Inc., 2010 WL 4792388 (D. Kan. Nov. 17, 2010)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff was required to produce its patent counsel?s relevant files and where its counsel retained hard copies of relevant emails but admitted to the destruction of electronic copies in accordance with the firm?s email policy, despite knowledge of the relevant dispute between plaintiff and defendant, the court denied a motion for sanctions where there was no evidence of bad faith in the destruction (because counsel acted pursuant to a ?general policy applying to all legal matters?) and where, because hard copies were preserved, there was no showing of prejudice to defendants

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Daugherty v. Murphy, 2010 WL 4877720 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 23, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendants established that the requested data extracts proposed by plaintiffs would take 5 months and ?about $100,000? the court granted defendants? motion for a protective order and ordered defendants to execute the data extractions which they had proposed and which they represented would be far less burdensome; court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel defendants? production of ?file layouts? for the purpose of revising their request for data extracts but acknowledged that defendants? failure to previously produce ?file layouts? was a serious issue and its wiliness to address sanctions upon a motion from plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: Data extracts

Sofaer Global Hedge Fund v. Brightpoint, Inc, 2010 WL 4701419 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 12, 2010)

Key Insight: Addressing several discovery issues, court ordered plaintiff to undertake search of 13 custodians, despite objection that only one custodian was likely to maintain relevant records, where the paucity of documents produced from plaintiff?s championed custodian indicated the need for additional searching but, as to former employees records, etc. which plaintiff alleged were unavailable because the computers were wiped for use by other employees, court reasoned that ?a party obviously cannot produce documents that do not exist? and declined to compel their production; court denied defendants? request for dismissal but, because plaintiff?s opposition on many issues was ?substantially unjustified? granted the fees related to pursuing those requests

Nature of Case: Claims arising from loan made by plaintiff based on false representations by defendant

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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