Archive: December 1, 2015

1
Lutzeier v. Citigroup Inc., No. 4:14-cv-00183-RLW, 2015 WL 430196 (E.D. Mo. Feb 2, 2015)
2
Advantor Sys. Corp. v. DRS Technical Servs., Inc., No. 6:14-cv-533-Orl-31DAB, 2015 WL 403308 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2015)
3
Ballai v. Kiewit Power Constructors, Co., No. 110166, 2015 WL 423795 (Kan. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2015)

Lutzeier v. Citigroup Inc., No. 4:14-cv-00183-RLW, 2015 WL 430196 (E.D. Mo. Feb 2, 2015)

Key Insight: Addressing Plaintiff?s motion to add custodians, the court granted the motion, in part, but declined to compel the addition of high-level executives absent a showing that they had ?unique or personal knowledge of the subject matter that warrants their information?; Court found that the current ?search criteria adequately ensure[d]? the production of relevant documents and declined Plaintiff?s request for additional search terms except the phrase ?consent order? where confusion existed as to the existence of ?other? consent orders relevant to the case; where plaintiff was unsatisfied with Defendant?s production of more than 46,000 documents ?without providing any indication as to which documents are responsive to which of Plaintiff?s fifty-eight (58 ) enumerated requests,? but where the defendant represented that their production was ?fully text-searchable and contain[s] metadata permitting Plaintiff to identify, among other things, the custodians of the document, recipients, date and other key information,? the court found that the production was ?in a reasonably useable form or forms and/or the production is searchable, sortable and paired with relevant metadata? and thus was compliant with the parties? ESI agreement and with Rule 34

Nature of Case: Wrongful discharge; Age Discrimination; Dodd Frank; Sarbanes-Oxley

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Advantor Sys. Corp. v. DRS Technical Servs., Inc., No. 6:14-cv-533-Orl-31DAB, 2015 WL 403308 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2015)

Key Insight: The Magistrate Judge denied Advantor?s motion for sanctions against DRS for intentional bad faith spoliation of evidence, finding that sanctions were not warranted because there was no showing that the destroyed evidence was critical to litigate the case issues. DRS had a duty to preserve the contents of a laptop that was used by an employee who was hired away from Advantor and subsequently fired by DRS after receiving notice from Advantor that litigation was reasonably anticipated. Despite having a duty to preserve the contents of the laptop, DRS reformatted the laptop and erased files that were potentially proprietary to Advantor and in violation of their Nondisclosure Agreement. However, Advantor failed to show that the files contained relevant information critical to the case or that DRS was aware the files were on the laptop. Despite the unexplained reformatting of the laptop, sanctions were not granted.

Nature of Case: Employment

Electronic Data Involved: Hard Drive

Ballai v. Kiewit Power Constructors, Co., No. 110166, 2015 WL 423795 (Kan. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2015)

Key Insight: Court of Appeals of Kansas found no abuse of discretion by the district court for failing to order sanctions related to the recycling of the laptop computer used by appellant during his employment, as the district court did not issue an order to preserve and there is no statutory or common-law duty to preserve evidence in Kansas; court further found no abuse of discretion by the district court for excluding evidence of recycling the computer; court also found that a chat log was relevant, material, and probative and the appellant was protected from prejudice because the district court only allowed the redacted version of the chat log into evidence.

Nature of Case: Employment

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop; Chat Log

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