Archive: December 1, 2012

1
Commercial Law Corp., P.C., v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., NO. 10-13275, 2012 WL 137835 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 18, 2012)
2
In re Subpoena to Creeden & Assocs., No. 12C 5573, 2012 WL 4580841 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2012)
3
Rawal v. United Air Lines Inc., No. 07 C 5561, 2012 WL 581146 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 22, 2012)
4
In re Application of Wilson & Partners, No. 06-cv-02575-MKS-KMT, 2012 WL 1901217 (D. Colo. May 24, 2012)
5
Spanish Peaks Lodge, LLC v. KeyBank National Assoc., No. 10-453, 2012 WL 895465 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 15, 2012)
6
Kruse Tech. P?ship v. Daimler AG, No. SACV 10-1066 JVS (RNBx), 2012 WL 12888668 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2012)
7
Thermotek, Inc. v. Orthoflex, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-870-D (BF), 2015 WL 4138722 (N.D. Tex. July 7, 2012)
8
Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)
9
Trail v. Lesko, NO. GD-10-017249, 2012 WL 2864004 (Pa. Com. Pl. July 5, 2012)
10
Trail v. Lesko, NO. GD-10-017249, 2012 WL 2864004 (Pa. Com. Pl. July 5, 2012)

In re Subpoena to Creeden & Assocs., No. 12C 5573, 2012 WL 4580841 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2012)

Key Insight: Addressing plaintiff?s motion to enforce a subpoena, the court focused on the issue of the burden to the third party and granted plaintiff?s motion as to the requests for production with some limitations and also conducted an 8-part cost shifting analysis which resulted in the court?s order that plaintiff was to bear 60 of the third party?s ?staff research and production costs? and 30 of the third party?s ?legal costs?; court indicated that the ?lower legal percentage [was] a reflection of what the Court believe[d] was [the third-party?s] recalcitrance to meaningfully participate in legal negotiations concerning discovery thus far? and that ?[t]he lower legal fee-shifting amount is also an attempt to get [the third party] to object only to those points it really cares about?

Nature of Case: Antitrust

 

Rawal v. United Air Lines Inc., No. 07 C 5561, 2012 WL 581146 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 22, 2012)

Key Insight: Court sustained objections to taxation of costs related to processing email accounts and other files into searchable format where the services were performed by the ?litigation support department? of defendant?s outside counsel and went ?far beyond the mere reproduction or exemplification of documents? and instead comprised the ?kind of work conventionally performed by attorneys and paralegals, the costs of which are not recoverable?

Nature of Case: Discrimination and retaliation

 

In re Application of Wilson & Partners, No. 06-cv-02575-MKS-KMT, 2012 WL 1901217 (D. Colo. May 24, 2012)

Key Insight: Court found that third party failed to establish the reasonableness or necessity of attorney?s fees related to setting up a database to assist in production, including dealing with administrator of that database and thus upheld recommendation against recovery of attorney?s fees; court affirmed recommendation against recovery of costs related to manual review and production that resulted from abandonment of the document database (because of problems with the database) where the Magistrate Judge determined the review was an ?unnecessarily incurred expense, which [the requesting party] had no ability to control or contain;? court adopted recommendation ordering that third party respondents be responsible for half the cost of the database

Spanish Peaks Lodge, LLC v. KeyBank National Assoc., No. 10-453, 2012 WL 895465 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 15, 2012)

Key Insight: Acknowledging the ?flexible and fact-specific? nature of the question of reasonable forseeability, the court addressed several possible triggers for the duty to preserve but ultimately determined that plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the duty to preserve was reasonably foreseeable at the time defendant implemented its document retention policy or that defendant should have reasonably anticipated litigation and therefore denied plaintiffs? motion for spoliation sanctions

Kruse Tech. P?ship v. Daimler AG, No. SACV 10-1066 JVS (RNBx), 2012 WL 12888668 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2012)

Key Insight: Defendant moved to re-tax $202K of costs for exemplification and reproduction that were denied by the clerk. The court found that costs of copies provided to Defendant?s witnesses were not necessary or taxable because they were not requested by or tendered to the opposing party, as discussed in In re Ricoh Co., Ltd. Patent Litig., 661 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The court allowed $12.013.68 in XDD?s costs for converting documents to TIFF, performing OCR (required by court order) and producing the documents to Plaintiff. Defendant argued costs from third-party vendor IAV for storage of responsive documents and processes to allow digital searching of Defendant?s databases should have been allowed by the clerk. Plaintiff argued these were costs for collection and review of documents, rather than for copying. Plaintiff also argued the OCR fees were duplicative and that Defendant?s invoices did not provide sufficient detail to support taxation. The court found these costs were not taxable (searching and organizing rather than copying, as well as duplicative) and properly denied by the clerk.

Nature of Case: Taxable Costs

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Thermotek, Inc. v. Orthoflex, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-870-D (BF), 2015 WL 4138722 (N.D. Tex. July 7, 2012)

Key Insight: For Defendants? discovery failures, including gross negligence in the identification and collection of potentially relevant documents (as a result of an individual defendant?s attempts to identify and collect responsive documents himself) and a ?cavalier attitude towards his discovery obligations? (as evidenced by the ?repeated failure? to conduct a proper document collection? and ?lack of candor regarding their document productions,? e.g., failure to indicate that certain produced emails were not ?the actual transmittal communications? that originally accompanied invoices), the court declined to impose severe sanctions absent evidence of bad faith – although the request was denied without prejudice – and ordered Defendants to pay reasonable expenses and fees incurred by Plaintiff that were attributable to Defendants? discovery misconduct, which Plaintiff represented could exceed $100,000

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, breach of warranty, unfair competition, fraud

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, including QUickbooks

Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)

Key Insight: On petition for discretionary review, Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed appeals court?s finding that state proffered sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie showing that social-networking webpage offered into evidence was authored by the defendant based upon sufficient circumstantial evidence to ?support a finding that the exhibits were that they were purported to be?; court?s opinion discussed proper procedures for authenticating evidence

Nature of Case: Criminal

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

Trail v. Lesko, NO. GD-10-017249, 2012 WL 2864004 (Pa. Com. Pl. July 5, 2012)

Key Insight: Relying on PA Rule of Civil Procedure 4011(b) ?which bars discovery that would cause ?unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression …?? court denied cross motions to compel discovery of parties? social media content ?because the intrusions that such discovery would cause were not offset by any showing that the discovery would assist the requesting party in presenting its case?

Nature of Case: Motor vehicle accident

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

Trail v. Lesko, NO. GD-10-017249, 2012 WL 2864004 (Pa. Com. Pl. July 5, 2012)

Key Insight: Relying on PA Rule of Civil Procedure 4011(b) ?which bars discovery that would cause ?unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression …?? court denied cross motions to compel discovery of parties? social media content ?because the intrusions that such discovery would cause were not offset by any showing that the discovery would assist the requesting party in presenting its case?

Nature of Case: Motor vehicle accident

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

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