Archive: December 1, 2011

1
Datel Holdings, LTD v. Microsoft Corp., No. C-09-05535 EDL, 2011 WL 866993 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2011)
2
JFB Hart Coatings, Inc. v. AM Gen., LLC, 764 F.Supp.2d 974 (N.D. Ill. 2011)
3
Doyle v. Gonzales, 2011 WL 611825 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 10, 2011)
4
Corbello v. Devito, 2010 WL 4703519 (D. Nev. Nov. 12, 2010); 2011 WL 1466605 (D. Nev. Apr. 15, 2011)
5
Bell v. Callaway Partners, LLC, 1:06-CV-1993-CC, 2011 WL 13175079 (N.D. Ga. June 1, 2011)
6
Baisden v. I?m Ready Prods., 793 F. Supp. 2d 970 (S.D. Tex. 2011)
7
N.V.E. Inc. v. Palmeroni, No. 06-5455 (ES), 2011 WL 4407428 (D.N.J. Sept. 21, 2011)
8
Hansen v. Chevron USA, Inc., No. 2:08-cv-00959-TS-DN, 2011 WL 2149770 (D. Utah May 31, 2011)
9
Francisco v. Verizon S., Inc., 272 F.R.D. 436 (E.D. Va. 2011)
10
People v. Oyerinde, No. 298199, 2011 WL 5964613 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2011)

Datel Holdings, LTD v. Microsoft Corp., No. C-09-05535 EDL, 2011 WL 866993 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2011)

Key Insight: Where despite reasonable measures to prevent the production of privileged materials a software glitch resulted in the failure to identify privileged portions of emails that were then produced and where, upon learning of the disclosure, counsel acted promptly to rectify the error, the court found privilege had not been waived by the inadvertent production pursuant to FRE 502; court?s analysis included discussion of meaning of ?inadvertent?

Electronic Data Involved: Email chain

JFB Hart Coatings, Inc. v. AM Gen., LLC, 764 F.Supp.2d 974 (N.D. Ill. 2011)

Key Insight: Court found it ?more likely than not? that plaintiff?s fabrication of an exhibit was in bad faith and necessitated sanctions and ordered an evidentiary hearing where evidence revealed that plaintiff had significantly altered evidence and subsequently provided misleading information to opposing counsel and the court regarding the same

Electronic Data Involved: Fabricated evidence

Doyle v. Gonzales, 2011 WL 611825 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 10, 2011)

Key Insight: Where a small town with ?limited financial and technological resources? sought a protective order to allow phased discovery of ESI in light of the alleged burden and expense of the requested discovery, the court granted in part the defendant?s motion and crafted a protective order which established the search terms to be employed and allowed plaintiff the opportunity to provide suggestions and which provided that if the search returned an unreasonable amount of documents that plaintiff?s counsel should assist in ?restructuring the search? to reduce that number

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Bell v. Callaway Partners, LLC, 1:06-CV-1993-CC, 2011 WL 13175079 (N.D. Ga. June 1, 2011)

Key Insight: Court approved recovery of costs for expenses Defendants incurred for document scanning or imaging given that the parties agreed Defendants would produce documents in electronic format. The Court declined to allow recovery of costs for services and products other than the reproduction of documents such as Bates labeling, OCR formatting, CD creation, CD archival and PDF to TIFF Conversion stating that although such services and products assist in document review, they ?extend beyond mere copying and were unnecessary.?

Nature of Case: Taxable Costs

 

N.V.E. Inc. v. Palmeroni, No. 06-5455 (ES), 2011 WL 4407428 (D.N.J. Sept. 21, 2011)

Key Insight: Court ordered adverse inference and monetary sanctions (in an amount to be established) where plaintiff was grossly negligent in its preservation, review and collection of documents, including by failing to issue a litigation hold and because of counsel?s failure to supervise the review and collection of documents, and where such failures resulted in the loss of relevant evidence; court denied request for preclusion of evidence where defendant failed to establish that plaintiff acted in bad faith; Motion for Reconsideration denied by District Judge 2012 WL 2020242 (D.N.J. June 5, 2012)

Hansen v. Chevron USA, Inc., No. 2:08-cv-00959-TS-DN, 2011 WL 2149770 (D. Utah May 31, 2011)

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel forensic imaging of laptop containing responsive information where plaintiff did not elaborate on the ?need? for such imaging but rather just asked for it, where defendant offered to produce the relevant information from the laptop on a thumb drive, and where defendant indicated that the laptop contained both confidential and personal information

People v. Oyerinde, No. 298199, 2011 WL 5964613 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2011)

Key Insight: Trial court properly determined that Facebook messages from Defendant to his victim were admissible non-hearsay as party admissions pursuant to MRE 801(d)(2); trial court (in bench trial) indicated that it reviewed Facebook messages from victim to defendant and from victim to her sister to ?provide context? for Defendant and victim?s relationship and, on appeal, appellate court reasoned that ?[r]egardless whether some of the messages should not have been admitted under MRE 803(3), the trial court did not rely on the messages to prove that any events actually occurred; judgment of the trial court was affirmed

Nature of Case: Criminal: First-degree felony murder and carjacking

Electronic Data Involved: Social Media Content (e.g., Facebook)

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