Archive: 2020

1
Slingerland v. Crisp Marketing, LLC (Southern District of Florida, 2020)
2
KCI USA, Inc. v. Healthcare Essentials, Inc., 797 Fed.Appx. 1002 (6th Cir. Jan. 16, 2020).
3
Hurry Family Revocable Trust, et al. v. Frankel (M.D. Fla. 2020)
4
In re WTG Fuels, Inc. (Texas Court of Appeals, 2020)
5
In re Mercedes-Benz Emissions Litig. (District of NJ, 2020)
6
In re Mercedes-Benz Emissions Litigation (D. N.J. 2020)
7
Dorfman v. Albertsons LLC (district of Idaho, 2020)
8
NY Machinery v. The Korean Cleaners Monthly (D. N.J. 2020)
9
Kamuda v. Sterigenics U.S. LLC (Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois, 2020)
10

Slingerland v. Crisp Marketing, LLC (Southern District of Florida, 2020)

Key Insight: discovery requests overbroad

Nature of Case: telephone consumer protection act

Electronic Data Involved: general discovery

Keywords: scope of relevant discovery, class action

View Case Opinion

KCI USA, Inc. v. Healthcare Essentials, Inc., 797 Fed.Appx. 1002 (6th Cir. Jan. 16, 2020).

Key Insight: Former attorneys sanctioned (firm and individually) for discovery failures during representation. Court determined they had been denied due process and sanctions should not have been imposed.

Nature of Case: Trade Practices, Unfair Competition, Tortious Interference

Electronic Data Involved: Various Items in Discovery

Keywords: discovery sanctions, individual attorneys, due process, notice

View Case Opinion

Hurry Family Revocable Trust, et al. v. Frankel (M.D. Fla. 2020)

Key Insight: Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions. The documents sought were specific emails. Opposing the Motion, Defendant argued that it was untimely as it was submitted four months after the discovery deadline, and that the emails sought were not responsive to Plaintiff’s earlier document (discovery) request. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion.

Nature of Case: Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Case Summary

In re WTG Fuels, Inc. (Texas Court of Appeals, 2020)

Key Insight: discovery that is not authorized by law cannot be “untaken”. order that compels discovery beyond that allowed by law is abuse of discretion

Nature of Case: personal injury, property liability

Electronic Data Involved: WTG net worth documentation

Keywords: net worth discovery, abuse of discretion, motion to compel

View Case Opinion

In re Mercedes-Benz Emissions Litig. (District of NJ, 2020)

Key Insight: dispute over search terms meant to identify documents

Nature of Case: environmental litigation

Electronic Data Involved: all discovery, search term protocol

Keywords: search term protocol, predictive coding, technology assisted review,

View Case Opinion

In re Mercedes-Benz Emissions Litigation (D. N.J. 2020)

Key Insight: Although TAR is widely recognized as “cheaper, more efficient, and superior to keyword searching,” the responding party may decide for themselves the best method for producing their ESI. The court will not compel the utilization of TAR but may revisit the issue if Plaintiff contends the actual production is deficient.

Nature of Case: Environmental, Class Action

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic Documents Generally

Case Summary

Dorfman v. Albertsons LLC (district of Idaho, 2020)

Key Insight: if a motion to deny a class certification can be granted before discovery

Nature of Case: telemarketing, telephone consumer protection act

Electronic Data Involved: discovery showing common questions for a class certification

Keywords: class certification, rule 23

View Case Opinion

NY Machinery v. The Korean Cleaners Monthly (D. N.J. 2020)

Key Insight: This dispute was over which party was obligated to translate (or pay for the cost of translating) documents that were produced by Defendants (in response to document requests) into English. Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Defendants to translate the documents and/or pay for the cost of translation, The Court denied it, finding that Defendants were neither obligated to translate the documents nor responsible for the cost(s) of translation. However, the court noted in a footnote that a party that produces documents in response to an interrogatory may be required to provide translations.

Nature of Case: Unfair Competition, Defamation

Electronic Data Involved: Documents

Case Summary

Kamuda v. Sterigenics U.S. LLC (Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois, 2020)

Key Insight: whether a request for a specific format is an undue burden

Nature of Case:

Electronic Data Involved: documents produced in TIFF format versus native format

Keywords: undue burden, TIFF, native, cybersecurity

Identified State Rule(s): 214(b)

View Case Opinion

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