Archive: December 2016

1
Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC v. Kellog N.A. Co., No. 13 C 321, 2016 WL 316865 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 26, 2016)
2
Procaps S.A. v. Patheon, Inc., NO. 12-24356-CIV-GOODMAN, 2016 WL 411017 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 2, 2016)
3
Mathur v. Hospitality Props. Trust, No. 13-cv-7206, 2016 WL 520999 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 10, 2016)
4
Benefield v. MStreet Entm?t, LLC, No. 3:13-cv-1000, 2016 WL 374568 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 1, 2016)
5
McKinney/Pearl Rest. Partners, L.P. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 3:14-cv-2498-B, 2016 WL 98603 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2016)
6
Stinson v. City of New York, No. 10 Civ. 4228(RWS), 2016 WL 54684 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2016)
7
Hausman v. Holland Am. Line-U.S.A., No. CV13-0937 BJR, 2015 WL 51273 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 5, 2016)

Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC v. Kellog N.A. Co., No. 13 C 321, 2016 WL 316865 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 26, 2016)

Key Insight: Court declined to allow costs for OCR, ?concordance hosting,? ??volume mastering,? ?unitization,? ?document imaging,? ?CD duplication,? and ?media formatting,?? but did allow costs associated with TIFF and PDF conversion

Nature of Case: Patent

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable Costs related to e-Discovery

Procaps S.A. v. Patheon, Inc., NO. 12-24356-CIV-GOODMAN, 2016 WL 411017 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 2, 2016)

Key Insight: Addressing taxable costs for electronic discovery, the court acknowledged the lack of any ?on-point Eleventh Circuit law? and deemed CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 737 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ?to be the most persuasive circuit court opinion on the issue?; where even CBT Flint Partners LLC did not address costs related to OCR, however, the court indicated it would ?follow the fundamental principle that the costs statute is ?modest? and ?narrow? and ?limited to minor, incidental expenses? and excluded OCR costs from Defendant?s costs request

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs for electronic discovery

Mathur v. Hospitality Props. Trust, No. 13-cv-7206, 2016 WL 520999 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 10, 2016)

Key Insight: Addressing Plaintiff?s claim that defendant?s duty to preserve surveillance footage was triggered by the fact that it knew Defendant was robbed in its hotel, that the police were involved, and that both the police and Defendants ?were using the footage to investigate the incident? (perhaps evidenced by the preservation of different footage at the request of police), the court reasoned that ??mere knowledge of the accident and the possible causes of the accident? is not enough to create a duty to preserve evidence? and found that defendant?s spoliation claim failed

Nature of Case: Claims arising from robbery of hotel guest

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

Benefield v. MStreet Entm?t, LLC, No. 3:13-cv-1000, 2016 WL 374568 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 1, 2016)

Key Insight: Where, despite a request from Plaintiff?s counsel to preserve all communications between plaintiff and defendants or their employees AND Defendants? OWN REQUEST that Plaintiff preserve information from her cellular phones, Defendants failed to preserve potentially relevant text messages, the court rejected defendants? arguments that ?due to the nature of text message communications and the cellular devices they are stored on?a requirement to preserve text messages from private cellular phones is unduly burdensome and an invasion of privacy? and found that the messages should have been preserved and indicated that a ?spoliation instruction to the jury? would be given at trial but declined to preclude defendants? reliance on plaintiff?s text messages at trial or to order defendants to pay fees and cost associated with the extraction of plaintiffs? text messages from her own phone

Nature of Case: Employment

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages

McKinney/Pearl Rest. Partners, L.P. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 3:14-cv-2498-B, 2016 WL 98603 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2016)

Key Insight: In this case, the court addressed Plaintiff?s motion to compel ?the production and organization of certain documents and metadata? and considered the applicability of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i) and (ii) to the production of electronically stored information. Ultimately, ?[t]he Court [found] persuasive the analysis that, where Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) addresses the organization of a production and Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(ii) specifically addresses the form for producing ESI (where form of production is inherently not an issue with hard-copy documents), and in light of the purposes of the 2006 amendments to Rule 34 and of Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i)?s requirements, Rules 34(b)(2)(E)(i) and 34(b)(2)(E)(ii) should both apply to ESI productions.?

Nature of Case: Breach of commercial lease agreement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Stinson v. City of New York, No. 10 Civ. 4228(RWS), 2016 WL 54684 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2016)

Key Insight: Court found Defendants? discovery failures, including failing to implement a litigation hold for three years, failing to adequately communicate the hold, and failure to ensure compliance with the litigation hold were grossly negligent and imposed a permissive adverse inference as a sanction; court?s analysis included the admonition that ?the reasonableness or unreasonableness of one party?s demands does not determine the scope of the other party?s obligation to preserve documents?

Nature of Case: Class action civil rights

Electronic Data Involved: ESI: email, text messages, har copy

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