Archive: December 1, 2015

1
Dekeyser v. Thyssenkrupp Waupaca Inc., No. 08-c-0488, 2015 WL 10937559 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 10, 2015)
2
United States v. Zaragoza-Moreira, 2015 WL 1219535 (C.A.9 (Cal.) Mar. 18, 2015)
3
Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Coupons.com, Inc., 2015 WL 1189661 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2015)
4
O?Connor v. Newport Hosp., 2015 WL 1225683 (R.I., Mar. 17, 2015)
5
Shaw v. Experian Info. Sol., Inc., 2015 WL 1260552 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2015)
6
Loop AI Labs Inc. v. Gatti, 2015 WL 1090180 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 12, 2015)
7
Thermoset Corp. v. Building Materials Corp. of Am., No. 14-60268-CIV, 2015 WL 156310 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2015)
8
In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., No. 13-MD-02420 YGR (DMR), 2015 WL 833681 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2015)
9
Otsuka Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 07-1000 (MLC), 2015 WL 5921049 (D.N.J. Oct. 9, 2015)
10
Adesanya v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., No. 2:13-CV-5564-SDW-SCM, 2015 WL 6122080 (D.N.J. Oct. 16, 2015)

United States v. Zaragoza-Moreira, 2015 WL 1219535 (C.A.9 (Cal.) Mar. 18, 2015)

Key Insight: Court reversed and remanded case to the district court with directions to dismiss indictment in this criminal case after finding that Homeland Security Investigations agent acted in bad faith and in violation of defendant?s due process rights in failing to preserve video footage of defendant the agent knew to be of exculpatory value to the defendant, which the court found was established by a transcript of the agent?s interview with the defendant. The court also noted that the government?s failure to take action in response to a letter from defense counsel to the Assistant United States Attorney requesting preservation of the video tapes related to the defendant?s arrest or events leading to the arrest was ?particularly disturbing,? but declined to decide whether that failure also constituted bad faith given that they had already found bad faith on the part of the HSI agent.

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Video footage

Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Coupons.com, Inc., 2015 WL 1189661 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2015)

Key Insight: Cost of converting native email and other native files into imaged format for purposes of production was one of many items considered by the court in defendant?s application for costs following grant of summary judgment. Despite plaintiffs argument that the requested expenses should only be approved if they pertain to documents actually produced to Plaintiff, court was satisfied with defendant?s explanation that the costs were ?actually and necessarily incurred in responding to the Plaintiff?s discovery demands? and allowed recovery of defendant?s tiffing costs, even though Defendant could not ?state with certainty whether every document that was converted was actually turned over to Plaintiff as being responsive to a particular demand.?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Imaged native files

O?Connor v. Newport Hosp., 2015 WL 1225683 (R.I., Mar. 17, 2015)

Key Insight: Court vacated judgment in a medical malpractice case and remanded the case for a new trial where the trial justice admitted 3 exhibits without proper authentication, and exacerbated the error by allowing a biased, incorrect jury instruction which highlighted the information contained in the erroneously admitted exhibits, contributing to their prejudicial effect. Exhibits in question – whose purpose was to impeach plaintiff?s sole medical expert witness – were 2 printed versions of web pages, and a purported printout of an email, all of which were admitted over plaintiff?s objections after plaintiff?s expert witness was asked questions about their contents. With the record indicating no attempt to verify authenticity, no comments or findings from the justice with respect to authentication of any of the documents, nor indication on the record that defendant?s counsel made any representations to the trial justice regarding when or by whom the purported web page print outs were accessed and printed, the court concluded ?While we have not set a ?high hurdle to clear? with respect to authentication ? we hold that the trial justice abused his discretion by admitting exhibits A-C based solely on the brief testimony of one witness who was clearly unfamiliar with all three documents.?

Nature of Case: Medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Email; Web page

Shaw v. Experian Info. Sol., Inc., 2015 WL 1260552 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2015)

Key Insight: Court granted Plaintiffs? motion to compel production of defendant database records. Defendant argued that the harm to third parties from disclosure of personal information contained in the requested data outweighed the relevance of the information to plaintiffs? claim, and that the preparation, review, and production presented an undue burden. Finding that the requested data was highly relevant to the class certification requirements, the court concluded plaintiffs? need significantly outweighed privacy concerns given the option of producing subject to protective order and Plaintiffs? agreement to accept data with personal information redacted. Nor was the court persuaded by defendant?s burden argument, finding the estimate and explanation from plaintiffs? database consultant ?more persuasive, appropriate, and accurate? than that provided by defendant – particularly in light of modifications Plaintiffs made to their request after defendant clarified how the data was stored in their systems. The court also noted that defendant?s briefing failed to allege any facts supporting its assertion that the information was more readily available from other sources.

Nature of Case: Class Action; Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Loop AI Labs Inc. v. Gatti, 2015 WL 1090180 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 12, 2015)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for temporary restraining order which requested restrictions on defendant?s assets, and orders prohibiting destruction of evidence, expediting discovery, allowing plaintiff access to defendant?s email and social media accounts, and for the return of a laptop because the court found plaintiff failed to demonstrate it was likely to suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. In asserting it would suffer irreparable harm, plaintiff argued defendant had demonstrated she would not observe her obligation to preserve evidence, but provided no evidence in support of this claim. Stating that ?suspicions are not a proper ground for injunctive relief,? the Court noted that counsel for each defendant were ?expected to advise their clients of their duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence and the serious consequences for failing to do so,? but denied further relief.

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of Trade Secrets; Breach of Contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email, social media, laptop

Thermoset Corp. v. Building Materials Corp. of Am., No. 14-60268-CIV, 2015 WL 156310 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2015)

Key Insight: Applying the elements of Fed. R. Evid. 502(b), court concluded that whether production was ?inadvertent? should be determined by asking whether the party intended to produce the document or whether it was a mistake rather than looking at court-identified factors to determine whether the ??inadvertent? element? was satisfied and found: 1) that the at-issue emails were produced by mistake, and thus inadvertently, 2) that reasonable steps to prevent the disclosure were taken where counsel identified the documents as privileged after personally inspecting them but where they were nonetheless produced inadvertently among the other 1,000 pages produced in response to the relevant request, and 3) that prompt steps were taken to prevent the error where counsel informed opposing counsel of the inadvertent production on the same day he discovered it; thus, the inadvertent production did not result in waiver

Nature of Case: Claims arising from defective roofing adhesive

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., No. 13-MD-02420 YGR (DMR), 2015 WL 833681 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2015)

Key Insight: Where parties disagreed regarding incorporation of ?randomized qualitative sampling? to determine the effectiveness of search terms into their Search Term Protocol because Defendant objected to Plaintiffs? access to non-responsive, irrelevant documents, court approved its use, arguing that it was intended to prevent the production of irrelevant information; in recognition of Defendants? concerns, court noted Plaintiff?s agreement that Defendant ?may review the random qualitative sample and remove any irrelevant document(s) from the sample for any reason, provided they replace the document(s) with an equal number of randomly generated document(s)?, ordered that the irrelevant documents and any attorney notes regarding the sample be destroyed within a time specified, and ordered that access to the random sample would be limited as specified

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (search terms at issue)

Otsuka Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 07-1000 (MLC), 2015 WL 5921049 (D.N.J. Oct. 9, 2015)

Key Insight: Court allowed taxable costs for ?the scanning and conversion of documents into TIFF format? noting that the conversion was ?critical due to the complex nature of the case and the sheer volume of documents that were exchanged during discovery and trial? and citing Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 674 F.3d 158, 160, 171 (3d Cir.2012)

Nature of Case: Consolidated claims under Hatch-Waxman Act

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable Costs

Adesanya v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., No. 2:13-CV-5564-SDW-SCM, 2015 WL 6122080 (D.N.J. Oct. 16, 2015)

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel production of computer used by Plaintiff for her work with Defendant?s competitor upon concluding that its likely contents would ?arguably be relevant to claims that Plaintiff unethically competed with her employer? among other things, and ordered Plaintiff to produce the computer as it had been stored in the ordinary course of business and that the computer be provided to a third-party vendor for imaging and then returned to Plaintiff

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, “claims that Plaintiff unethically competed with her employer”

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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