Case Summaries – Page 175 – Electronic Discovery Law

Pringle v. Adams, No. SACV 10-1656-JST (RZx), 2012 WL 1103939 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: In copyright infringement action where the creation date of certain evidence was highly relevant, the court granted defendant?s motion for terminating sanctions for plaintiff?s spoliation where plaintiff had a duty to preserve but nonetheless spoliated relevant evidence by sending a relevant hard drive for ?repairs? and where he indicated he no longer had possession of another hard drive, without explanation for its unavailability, and where the court found that defendants were prejudiced by the loss of the hard drives

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives containing information regarding creation date of allegedly infringed song

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Co., Ltd., No. C 11-1846 LHK (PSG), 2012 WL 1595784 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: For defendant?s significant delay in producing source code for ?design-around? products despite a court order compelling such production and because the delay resulted in prejudice to the plaintiff because of its inability to follow up (because the source code was produced after the close of discovery), the court imposed substantial sanctions and ordered that defendant would be precluded from offering ?design-around? evidence for three patents and from arguing that the design-arounds were in any way distinct from version of the code produced in accordance with the court?s order: ?Samsung must instead rely on versions of the code that were produced on or before December 31, 2011.?

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source Code

Domanus v. Lewicki, No. 08 C 4922, 2012 WL 2072866 (N.D. Ill. June 8, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendants indicated that a relevant hard drive had crashed and been disposed of but that some relevant information had been recovered and where plaintiff was unable to establish that defendants acted in bad faith, court found defendants were grossly negligent in their failure to preserve the relevant hard drive which resulted in prejudice to the plaintiff and ordered a ?spoliation charge? allowing but not requiring the jury to determine whether the spoliation warranted an adverse inference; opinion includes comprehensive discussion of relevant law and standards surrounding spoliation

Nature of Case: Racketeering and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc. v. Am. Specialties, Inc., No. CV 10-6938 SVW (PLA), 2012 WL 3217858 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where Defendant (through counsel) revealed on third day of trial that prior representations were inaccurate and that certain discovery had not been produced, or even searched for, court continued trial and ordered appointment of expert to conduct search of Defendant?s servers and produce responsive materials and later found that cost of expert totaling $168,045, to be paid by Defendant, was a sufficient sanction for failure to timely produce relevant documents; where plaintiff sought spoliation sanctions for Defendant?s failure to timely issue a litigation and failure to sufficiently distribute that hold or to follow up with its employees as to their obligations, but where evidence of spoliation of relevant evidence was minimal, court imposed only monetary sanctions

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

SEC v. Mercury Interactive LLC, No. C 07-02822 WHA, 2012 WL 4466582 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where, the SEC mistakenly deleted documents based on a miscommunication/misunderstanding with the producing party including the mistaken belief that the documents were maintained elsewhere (e.g. by the producing party or its counsel) and thereafter could not produce them when requested, the magistrate judge found that the deletion was not in bad faith and that an adverse inference was not warranted where defendants failed to show the relevance of the missing documents; on appeal the District Court denied defendants? motion for relief from the magistrate judge?s order

Nature of Case: SEC investigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

United States v. NCR Corp., No. 10-C-910, 2012 WL 4955304 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 17, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of additional documents in CERCLA action where government had already produced a ?staggering? amount of discovery and indicated that additional discovery obligations would be burdensome and where the information sought would only be of ?limited relevance? to the issues of the case

Nature of Case: CERCLA

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Richards v. Hertz Corp., —N.Y.S.2d—, 2012 WL 5503841 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 14, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where the public contents of one plaintiff?s Facebook account established that it was ?reasonable to believe? that other relevant information may also be present but where lower court only directed plaintiff to produce certain relevant photographs, appellate court remanded with instruction that the court conduct in camera review of ?all status reports, emails, photographs, and videos? to determine which of those materials, if any, were relevant; as to a separate plaintiff where no showing of potential relevance was made, appellate court found lower court properly granted her motion for a protective order

Nature of Case: Personal injury arising from auto accident

Electronic Data Involved: Social Network contents

Cytec Carbon Fibers LLC v. Hopkins, No. 2:11-0217-RMG-BM, 2012 WL 6044778 (D.S.C. Oct. 22, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant lost relevant text messages while trying to transfer them to from his phone to his computer during the time when he had an obligation to preserve them, court found that the loss was negligent?a level of culpability sufficient to impose sanctions?and that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the messages would have supported Plaintiff?s claims and found that ?an adverse inference instruction is the most appropriate sanction to be imposed?

Nature of Case: Fraud, RICO, unfair trade practices and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages

In re Estate of Tilimbo, No. 329/M-2007, 2012 WL 3604817 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. Aug. 22, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court granted access to third party attorney?s computers by a third party vendor for purpose of imaging and searching for documents related to the at-issue deed/transfer but imposed strict conditions, including time limits, and found that if the time limits could not be accommodated, then the burden of inspection was too great

Nature of Case: Action related to contested probate

Electronic Data Involved: computers/hard drives

Excel Gold Products, Inc. v. MacNeill Eng?g Co., Inc., No. 11 C 1928, 2012 WL 1570772 (May 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Despite finding that plaintiff had not produced sufficient information regarding its review procedures to establish that reasonable steps were taken to prevent inadvertent disclosure of privileged information, the court found that concerns of ?overriding fairness? precluded waiver where plaintiff had attempted to enter into a clawback agreement and where defense counsel?s rejection of such an agreement (because there was a protective order) could ?readily? have been interpreted to mean that inadvertently produced materials would be returned without dispute; plaintiff was ordered to conduct privilege review of documents produced, to the extent not already done

Electronic Data Involved: Inadvertently produced ESI

Catagory:Case Summaries