Author - eDiscovery Import

1
Seyler v. T-Sys. N. Amer., Inc., 2011 WL 196920 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2011)
2
Apelbaum v. Networked Insights, Inc., 2011 WL 286125 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 27, 2011)
3
Schulte v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 2011 WL 256542 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2011)
4
Harmon v. Lighthouse Capital Funding, Inc. (In re Harmon), 2011 WL 302859 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2011)
5
Medeva Pharma Suisse A.G. v. Roxane Labs., Inc., 2011 WL 310697 (D.N.J. Jan. 28, 2011)
6
Viramontes v. U.S. Bancorp, 2011 WL 291077 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2011)
7
Cook v. Olathe Health Sys., Inc., 2011 WL 346089 (D. Kan. Feb. 2, 2011)
8
Liberty Media Holdings, LLC. v. Does 1-59, 2011 WL 292128 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2011)
9
Lowy v. Peacehealth, 247 P.3d 7 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011)
10
Estate of Carlock v. Williamson, 2011 WL 308608 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2011)

Seyler v. T-Sys. N. Amer., Inc., 2011 WL 196920 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2011)

Key Insight: Court found no waiver of plaintiff?s claims of privilege resulting from the production of one privileged email where, pursuant to FRE 502(a) the waiver was not intentional as established by the sworn statement of plaintiff?s counsel that he was not aware that the plaintiff?s sister, the other party to the relevant email, was an attorney

Nature of Case: Hostile work environment, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Apelbaum v. Networked Insights, Inc., 2011 WL 286125 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 27, 2011)

Key Insight: Court declined to impose sanctions for plaintiff?s failure to disable software set to automatically erase and write-over internet-related files whenever the browser closed where plaintiff asserted that he installed such software as a regular practice on all of his computers and where because of the automatic nature of the software, evidence was lost well before plaintiff filed his suit or defendant filed its countersuit; defendant would be allowed to present additional evidence of spoliation at trial and the court indicated its willingness to reconsider sanctions upon a showing that more than just internet-related files were deleted

Nature of Case: Breach of contract related to compensation

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

Schulte v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 2011 WL 256542 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2011)

Key Insight: Court rejected defendant?s assertion that relevant video surveillance footage was protected as work product as a result of its preservation in anticipation of litigation and pursuant to the direction of counsel where the video was ?made as part of the normal course of surveillance videos made by NCL? and ?was not created in the work product context?

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

Harmon v. Lighthouse Capital Funding, Inc. (In re Harmon), 2011 WL 302859 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2011)

Key Insight: Providing a detailed explanation of defendant?s and counsel?s discovery abuses, including failing to search for internal emails, ignoring plaintiff?s subpoena, and counsel?s offering of ?evasive and unfounded testimony in an effort to rationalize his inexcusable non-production? of certain relevant (and repeatedly requested) documents, among other things, the court denied defendant?s motion for reconsideration and upheld as a sanction the establishment of a particular fact in plaintiff?s favor, namely that Lighthouse did not establish an escrow account in accord with its obligations under its agreement with plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Adversary proceeding in bankruptcy

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, bank statements

Medeva Pharma Suisse A.G. v. Roxane Labs., Inc., 2011 WL 310697 (D.N.J. Jan. 28, 2011)

Key Insight: Despite acknowledging defendant?s failure to implement a litigation hold until at least 5 years after it first anticipated litigation, the court denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions where the quantity and quality of the documents produced by defendant established that relevant information was ?diligently preserved? pursuant to defendant?s document retention policy and where plaintiff failed to establish that it had been prejudiced or that its ability to effectively prepare for trial had been impeded

Nature of Case: Hatch-Waxman patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

Viramontes v. U.S. Bancorp, 2011 WL 291077 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2011)

Key Insight: Court rejected plaintiff?s assertion that her January 22, 2009 letter to human resources put defendants on notice of its duty to preserve where the letter complained about her manager but did not threaten litigation and instead suggested ?a non-litigious resolution,? where plaintiff testified that she had no intention of suing at the time she sent the letter, where plaintiff waited over ten months after sending the letter to bring the instant litigation, and where the manager?s testimony that he thought the letter could give rise to legal ramifications was not sufficient to trigger the corporation?s duty to preserve

Nature of Case: Failure to accomodate, retaliation in violation of ADA

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Cook v. Olathe Health Sys., Inc., 2011 WL 346089 (D. Kan. Feb. 2, 2011)

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where plaintiff was unable to establish that the relevant hard drives were destroyed after the duty to preserve arose and where plaintiff was unable to establish that the in-car video at issue ever existed or was destroyed after the duty to preserve arose in light of defendants? testimony that because of a ?recorder malfunctioned? no video existed

Nature of Case: Civil claims arising from alleged mistreatment upon arrest

Electronic Data Involved: Four hard drives, officer’s in-car video

Liberty Media Holdings, LLC. v. Does 1-59, 2011 WL 292128 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2011)

Key Insight: Plaintiff?s motion for leave to take immediate discovery to obtain information sufficient to identify Does 1-59 (by serving subpoenas upon their internet service providers and cable providers) was granted where plaintiff identified the missing parties with sufficient specificity to allow the court to determine that the parties could be sued in federal court, where there were no other means by which plaintiff could obtain the information sought, and where plaintiff?s action could withstand a motion to dismiss

Nature of Case: Unlawful access to stored communications and copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Name of subscriber

Lowy v. Peacehealth, 247 P.3d 7 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011)

Key Insight: Appellate court reinstated original order compelling defendants? to search its quality assurance database for records pertaining to incidents similar to plaintiff?s and denied defendants? motion for a protective order where RCW 70.41.2003 prevents defendants? from allowing a review of such records by ?outside persons? but where an internal review for the purpose of identifying responsive records would not be in violation of the statute

Nature of Case: Medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Information related to claims similar to plaintiff’s

Estate of Carlock v. Williamson, 2011 WL 308608 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2011)

Key Insight: Court found no waiver of privilege where the email at issue was inadvertently produced (as the result of plaintiff?s access to defendants? servers); where defendants took sufficiently reasonable steps to prevent disclosure as evidenced by the parties? ?repeated discussions about key word limitations? and ?broad protective order? and because ?Defendants repeatedly and specifically emphasized their concern over how Plaintiff was handling any attorney-client communications it came across?; and where defendants acted promptly to rectify the problem upon receiving notice of the inadvertent production. Accordingly, court granted defendant?s motion to strike plaintiff?s motion for sanctions which relied on the privileged email but left open plaintiff?s opportunity to re-file upon removing all reference to the privileged message

Nature of Case: Litigation arising from death of inmate while incarcerated

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation hold spreadsheet, privileged email

Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.