Archive - July 2017

1
Borum v. Smith, No. 17-CV-00017-JHM, 2017 WL 3014487 (W.D. Ky. July 14, 2017)
2
Williams v. Superior Court (California Supreme Court, 2017)
3
Ottoson v. SMBC Leasing (S.D.N.Y., 2017)
4
Snider v. Danfoss (Northern District of Illinois, 2017)
5
Nachurs Alpine Solutions, Corp. v. Banks and Nutra-Flo Co., No. 5:15-CV-04015-LTS-CJW (N.D. Iowa July 7, 2017)
6
Lack of “Meaningful” Communication with Opposing Counsel, Client Results in “Overly Complex” and Burdensome Agreement; Partial Costs Shifted

Borum v. Smith, No. 17-CV-00017-JHM, 2017 WL 3014487 (W.D. Ky. July 14, 2017)

Key Insight: mere statement that disclosure would provide competitors with advantage doesn’t satisfy elements of trade secret.

Nature of Case: medical negligence

Electronic Data Involved: electronic health record (EHR) system

Keywords: confidential and proprietary trade secrets, protective order

View Case Opinion

Williams v. Superior Court (California Supreme Court, 2017)

Key Insight: Showing threshold of compelling interest unnecessary before nonparty contact information is discoverable

Nature of Case: Wage and hour class action

Electronic Data Involved: nonparty contact information

Keywords: third party privacy, class action, percipient witness, discovery threshold, threshold requirement

Identified State Rule(s): Cal. Civ. Proc. 2017.010, 1017.020, 2030.300

View Case Opinion

Ottoson v. SMBC Leasing (S.D.N.Y., 2017)

Key Insight: whether adverse inference is warranted

Nature of Case: workplace discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: text messages, email

Keywords: relevance, prejudice, obligation to preserve, intent to deprive, gross negligence, inherent authority, sanctions, spoliation, fees, costs, adverse inference, bad faith, willfully

View Case Opinion

Snider v. Danfoss (Northern District of Illinois, 2017)

Key Insight: Despite lack of sanctions due to the evidence being available in other ways, automatic deletion of emails is not best practice.

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted Emails

Keywords: Automatic deletion, Susan Blood,

View Case Opinion

Nachurs Alpine Solutions, Corp. v. Banks and Nutra-Flo Co., No. 5:15-CV-04015-LTS-CJW (N.D. Iowa July 7, 2017)

Key Insight: Production of non-responsive documents for re-review due to distrust may be cost shifted to opposing party

Nature of Case: Trade secret

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

Keywords: fertilizer, trade secret, Nutra-Flo,

View Case Opinion

Lack of “Meaningful” Communication with Opposing Counsel, Client Results in “Overly Complex” and Burdensome Agreement; Partial Costs Shifted

Bailey v. Brookdale Univ. Hosp. Med. Ctr., No. C 16-2195(ADS)(AKT), 2017 WL 2616957 (E.D.N.Y. June 16, 2017)

In this single-plaintiff employment litigation, Plaintiff claimed that the cost of production, equaling approximately $2,000-$3,000, was unduly burdensome in light of his personal financial situation, despite the existence of an ESI agreement between the parties, “so-ordered” by the court. Ultimately, the court concluded that although the data was not inaccessible, cost-shifting was appropriate because it appeared that the agreement proposed by the defendants was of a type “typically utilized in a more complex litigation involving multiple parties and corporate entities” and, more notably, because it appeared that Plaintiff’s counsel had not engaged in a “meaningful meet-and-confer session with opposing counsel concerning t[he] Agreement” or thoroughly reviewed the Agreement prior to signing it.  In addition to failing to properly confer with opposing counsel, the court concluded that “Plaintiff’s counsel did not engage in meaningful discussions with his client regarding the terms of the proposed agreement and what costs might be incurred . . . .”  Thus, absent any indication that Defendants would consider an alternative and less expensive form of production, the court ordered 40% of production costs shifted to Defendants and indicated that “fairness dictate[d]” that Plaintiff’s remaining costs “should be borne by Plaintiff’s counsel rather than Plaintiff himself.”

Read More

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