Case Summaries – Page 129 – Electronic Discovery Law

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2014 WL 4745933 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Trial court considered parties? respective objections to clerk?s taxation of costs and further reduced Apple?s costs award; among other things, trial court rejected Apple?s argument that it was entitled to recover e-discovery costs incurred in processing all documents collected for review, whether or not they were all produced, and instead reduced award to approximate amount Apple spent on documents that were actually produced to Samsung; as Apple estimated it uploaded a total of 18,264,712 pages in the litigation, of which 2,944,467 pages were ultimately produced, court calculated that approximately 16.12% of Apple?s e-discovery costs were spent on documents produced to Samsung and awarded Apple $238,103 for e-discovery costs

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Autohop Litig., No. 12-CV-4155 (LTS)(KNF), 2014 WL 5591047 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel, agreeing with plaintiff that particular document request was overly broad, unduly burdensome, and incomprehensively vague, and concluding that enormous burden and expense that would incurred by plaintiff to access and process the requested data outweighed any benefit defendant might gain; court further noted that the request violated agreement reflected in parties’ Joint Electronic Discovery Submission that they would not be required to search for “other forms of ESI whose preservation requires extraordinary affirmative measures that are not utilized in the ordinary course of business”

Nature of Case: Declaratory action with counterclaims for copyright violations, breach of contract and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Internal communications, viewership tracking data

Kelley v. Smith?s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00856-RCJ-CWH, 2014 WL 6474026 (D. Nev. Nov. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Store video was not protected from production by the impeachment evidence exception because the video?s impeachment value was too closely linked to its substantive value, and the evidence the video offered could not be realistically confined to use for impeachment purposes only; court granted both plaintiff?s motion to compel production of the video and plaintiff?s motion for protective order, which protected plaintiff from being forced to submit to a deposition without first being able to view the video

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Store video containing footage of plaintiff’s slip-and-fall

Commonwealth v. Foster F., No. 13-P-1427, 2014 WL 6909045 (Mass. App. Ct. Dec. 10, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Because the relevancy and admissibility of the Facebook messages depended on their being authored by the juvenile, the judge was required to determine whether the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the juvenile authored them; while the evidence was sufficient to support the judge’s conclusion that the Facebook messages were authored by the juvenile, as the juvenile?s actions served as a basis for concluding that the records were authentic, the better practice would have been to instruct the jurors that, in order to consider the Facebook messages as evidence of the statements contained therein, they first needed to find by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the juvenile was the author

Nature of Case: Juvenile court matter in which juvenile was adjudicated delinquent

Electronic Data Involved: Social networking Internet website messages

Cusato v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, No. B242696, 2014 WL 1349493 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2014) (unpublished)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Terminating sanctions dismissing cross-complaint deemed proper where cross-complainants used “File Shredder” to delete gigabytes of data from their computers in violation of orders requiring cross-complainants to preserve computer data and to turn over their computers to computer expert; however, trial court instructed to reconsider monetary sanctions imposed against cross-complainants given that computer expert hired by plaintiff began its forensic examination of the computer media months before it was authorized to do so, in violation of the court’s orders

Nature of Case: LLC members asserted claims and cross-claims after failed business venture

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives of individual cross-claimants

PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Google Inc., No. C13-01317-EJD (HRL), 2014 WL 580290 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Litigation was reasonably foreseeable so as to trigger a duty to preserve evidence when plaintiff first acquired patents with an eye toward litigation, although company was analyzing defendant’s technology and openly discussing litigation months earlier; however, because plaintiff waited 11 days after filing suit to implement a legal hold and there was evidence that potentially relevant emails were deleted, court imposed monetary sanctions instead of the more severe sanctions requested given absence of substantial prejudice to defendant and fact that plaintiff’s conscious disregard of its duty to preserve was motivated by cost-saving

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: E-mails

Volcan Group Inc. v. Omnipoint Commc?ns, Inc., 552 Fed. Appx. 644 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District court did not abuse discretion in dismissal of Plaintiff?s breach of contract action where Plaintiff failed to preserve (i.e., spoliated) relevant materials and where the record also suggested that certain evidence had been falsified

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

U.S. Legal Support, Inc. v. Hofioni, No. 2:13-cv-1770 LLK AC, 2014 WL 172336 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Motion for spoliation sanctions denied without prejudice where plaintiff argued that individual defendants violated their duty to preserve by continuing to use their personal electronic devices after receiving notice of the action and not “quarantining” the devices pending forensic imaging, as plaintiff did not make a specific showing that spoliation had, in fact, occurred; testimony of plaintiff’s forensic experts was mere speculation as neither expert identified any actual loss of data nor provided any forensic analysis of the personal electronic devices at issue

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: ESI stored on individual defendants’ personal electronic devices

Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Wake Forest Univ. Health Sciences, No. SA-11-CV-163-XR, 2014 WL 1787813 (W.D. Tex. May 5, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for protective order barring defendants from obtaining CEO’s e-mails during discovery, finding that CEO had potentially relevant information that defendants might not be able to obtain from other custodians and that CEO’s high level role did not make discovery of his e-mails any more or less burdensome than producing e-mails of other executives

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: E-mail of CEO who joined plaintiff after lawsuit was filed

Pac. Packaging Prods., Inc. v. Barenboim, No. MICV200904320, 2014 WL 2766735 (Mass. Super. Ct. Jan 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: After ten days of hearings on Plaintiff?s Emergency Motion for Judgment on All Claims Based upon Defendants? Fraud Upon the Court, court found that defendants violated preservation order and deliberately ignored preliminary injunction requiring defendants to turn over all written or digital materials taken from or generated by plaintiff, or derived in whole or in part from documents generated by plaintiff, that contain customer lists, pricing information or similar information, and not to retain copies of such materials, and that defendants spoliated evidence and committed a fraud upon the court; appropriate sanction was the entry of default against defendants, dismissal of the defendants? counterclaims, and an order requiring defendants to compensate plaintiff for attorneys? fees and costs incurred in litigating the motion; parties to submit memoranda describing their views regarding the extent of the default established and the future course of the litigation

Nature of Case: Distributer sued former employees who formed competing company

Electronic Data Involved: Computers, laptops, hard drives and other electronic storage devices

Catagory:Case Summaries