Archive: May 2017

1
Integrated Direct Marketing v. Drew May (4th Cir., 2017)
2
Hulett v. City of Syracuse (N.D. N.Y., 2017)
3
In Re State Farm Lloyds, Relator, Nos. 15-0903, 15-0905 (Tex. Sup. Ct. May 26, 2017)
4
Iris Mediaworks, Ltd. v. Vasisht (Sup. Ct. N.Y., 2017)
5
Iris Mediaworks, Ltd. v. Vasisht (Sup. Ct. N.Y., 2017)
6
In Re State Farm Lloyds, Relator, Nos. 15-0903, 15-0905 (Tex. Sup. Ct. May 26, 2017)
7
CrossFit, Inc. v. Nat’l Strength & Conditioning Ass’n, No. 3:14-cv-01191-JLS-KSC (S.D. Cal. May 26, 2017)
8
Robinson v. Renown Regional Medical Center (D. Nev., 2017)
9
First Am. Bankcard, Inc. v. Smart Bus. Tech., Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00638-KDE-JCW (E.D. La. May 24, 2017)
10
“Discovery can be burdensome even as it is inexpensive.”

Integrated Direct Marketing v. Drew May (4th Cir., 2017)

Key Insight: insufficient evidence to support finding of spoliation

Nature of Case: Trade secret misappropriation, breach of confidentiality agreement

Electronic Data Involved: deletion of plaintiff’s electronic files from May’s personal hard drive

Keywords: spoliation inference, trade secret misappropriation

View Case Opinion

In Re State Farm Lloyds, Relator, Nos. 15-0903, 15-0905 (Tex. Sup. Ct. May 26, 2017)

Key Insight: Texas Supreme Court 7 part test for proportionality- benefit, case needs, amount in controversy, parties’ resources, issues at stake, importance of proposed discovery and other articulable factors. Brought Texas in line with FRCP.

Nature of Case: Homeowner Insurance Claim Litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Insurer Records

Keywords: Format of Production; Proportionality Factors

Identified State Rule(s): Rule 192.4; Rule 196.4

Iris Mediaworks, Ltd. v. Vasisht (Sup. Ct. N.Y., 2017)

Key Insight: Defendant hacking of Plaintiff business email account, including confidential attorney-client communications.

Nature of Case: Trade secrets violation

Electronic Data Involved: business email account

Keywords: Email theft, hacking, sanctions.

Identified Local Court Rule(s): defendant showed a “disregard for the judicial process.”

CrossFit, Inc. v. Nat’l Strength & Conditioning Ass’n, No. 3:14-cv-01191-JLS-KSC (S.D. Cal. May 26, 2017)

Key Insight: Lack of cooperation and deception on production does not lead to terminating sanctions if evidence was not actually destroyed but does lead to adverse inferences and cost shifting

Nature of Case: Unfair Competition

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic records

Keywords: CrossFit, terminating sanctions, perjury

View Case Opinion

Robinson v. Renown Regional Medical Center (D. Nev., 2017)

Key Insight: Motion for sanctions denied since the court found that the loss had been accidental, so no intent. Plus, much of the info likely never existed.

Nature of Case: workplace discrimination/hostile work environment

Electronic Data Involved: Telephone logs and connected data, electronic logs

Keywords: Spoliation, loss of data, equipment failure, recoverable data, sanctions

View Case Opinion

First Am. Bankcard, Inc. v. Smart Bus. Tech., Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00638-KDE-JCW (E.D. La. May 24, 2017)

Key Insight: Specific objections are required for proportionality claims

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic data

Keywords: boilerplate, control, former owner and top officers

View Case Opinion

“Discovery can be burdensome even as it is inexpensive.”

Gordon v. T.G.R. Logistics, Inc., No. 16-cv-00238-NDF, 2017 WL 1947537 (D. Wy. May 10, 2017)

In this personal injury case, Defendant requested production of Plaintiff’s entire “Facebook account history” for her two accounts (and later limited the relevant timeframe of the request to information from three years prior to the accident through the present). In response, Plaintiff produced information that referenced the at-issue auto accident or her injuries and also provided information identified by a set of keywords set forth by Defendant.  She objected to further production based on a lack of relevance, undue burden, and invasion of privacy.  The court granted Defendant’s subsequent motion to compel, but imposed significant limits on the scope of production.

Read More

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