Archive: 2020

1
Rich v. Butowsky (D.D.C., 2020)
2
Carrington v Graden, (S.D.N.Y. 2020)
3
Livingston v. City of Chicago (Northern District of Illinois, 2020)
4
Oppenheimer v. Episcopal Communicators (Western District of North Carolina, 2020)
5
Integrated Communications & Technologies v.Hewlett-Packard Financial Services Company (D. Mass. Aug. 13, 2020)
6
7
Alsadi v. Intel Corporation (D. Az., 2020)
8
QueTel Corp v. Hisham Abbas (4th Cir., 2020)
9
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. M1 5100 Corp., d/b/a Jumbo Supermarket, Inc. (S.D. Fl. , 2020)
10
Denson v. Corp. of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (D. Utah, 2020)

Rich v. Butowsky (D.D.C., 2020)

Key Insight: A rule 45 motion to quash subpoenas on electronic subpoenas for electronic identities of anonymous users uses the 2themart.com test and are very fact specific

Nature of Case: Defamation

Electronic Data Involved: User account information

Keywords: Murder, twitter, first amendment, motion to quash, subpoena, defamation

Carrington v Graden, (S.D.N.Y. 2020)

Key Insight: Plaintiff was discovered to have fabricated emails. Court awarded over $500,000 in damages to Defendant.

Nature of Case: antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Keywords: sanctions,m fabricated evidence

View Case Opinion

Livingston v. City of Chicago (Northern District of Illinois, 2020)

Key Insight: A responding party is best suited to determine the method of review and using TAR to pre-cull documents from review is an acceptable methodology

Nature of Case: Hiring discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Keywords: Chicago, fire department, technology assisted review, TAR

View Case Opinion

Oppenheimer v. Episcopal Communicators (Western District of North Carolina, 2020)

Key Insight: A non-moving party’s objections to discovery need to be more than boilerplate and must be specific

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement (DMCA)

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents generally

Keywords: Copyright, DMCA, photographs, Oppenheimer,

View Case Opinion

Integrated Communications & Technologies v.Hewlett-Packard Financial Services Company (D. Mass. Aug. 13, 2020)

Key Insight: Spoliation had occurred, but no default judgment issued. Evidence regarding destruction was allowed, no testimony from plaintiffs regarding unpreserved ESI and adverse inference instruction.

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails and Computers

Keywords: adverse inference, sanctions

View Case Opinion

Key Insight: Court rejected additional discovery based off proportionality and discovery already produced. There was no additional proof of unproduced, relevant texts.

Electronic Data Involved: Text Messages

Keywords: additional discovery, proportionality

Alsadi v. Intel Corporation (D. Az., 2020)

Key Insight: Court ruled that ESI is expansive and includes information stored electronically, not just information on a computer system as plaintiffs argued. FRCP overrules state law or inherent power to sanction. No negative inference allowed.

Nature of Case: negligence, loss of consortium

Electronic Data Involved: records of ambient gas levels

Keywords: sanctions, negative inference, inherent authority

View Case Opinion

QueTel Corp v. Hisham Abbas (4th Cir., 2020)

Key Insight: Defendants had deleted relevant files just before forensic imaging occurred. Court sanctioned Defendant and issue permanent injunction.

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source Code and files on laptops

Keywords: sanctions, injunctions, source code

View Case Opinion

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. M1 5100 Corp., d/b/a Jumbo Supermarket, Inc. (S.D. Fl. , 2020)

Key Insight: Defendant “self-collected” without involvement of counsel. Court gave defendant one last chance to produce as 5 months remained in discovery, with active involvement of counsel.

Nature of Case: Age discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Various ESI

Keywords: certification, party collection

View Case Opinion

Denson v. Corp. of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (D. Utah, 2020)

Key Insight: Plaintiff’s explanation regarding loss of evidence had changed and court ruled that defendant was entitled to have a third party collect and preserve the evidence. Plaintiff offered passwords to accounts, but court was concerned about possible destruction given Plaintiff’s changing explanation regarding social media accounts and recording.

Nature of Case: Sexual Assault

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic Devices and Cloud Based Accounts; Recording of conversation

Keywords: invasion of privacy, loss of evidence

View Case Opinion

Copyright © 2021, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.