Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Rhode Island Managed Eye Care, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island, 996 A.2d 684 (R.I. 2010)
2
Univ. Sports Publ?ns Co. v. Playmakers Media Co., 2010 WL 2802322 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2010)
3
Solarbridge Tech., Inc. v. Doe, 2010 WL 3419189 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2010)
4
Biax Corp. v. Nvidia Corp., 2010 WL 3777540 (D. Colo. Sept. 21, 2010)
5
Lunts v. Rochester City School Dist., 2010 WL 2786519 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2010)
6
Brinckerhoff v. Town of Paradise, 2010 WL 4806966 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2010)
7
In re Air Cargo Shipping Servs. Antitrust Litig., 2010 WL 2976220 (E.D.N.Y. July 23, 2010)
8
Oce N. Am., Inc. v. Brazeau, 2010 WL 5033310 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2010)
9
Govan Brown & Assoc., Ltd. v. Does 1&2, 2010 WL 3076295 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2010)
10
Camesi v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 2010 WL 3718867 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 20, 2010)

Rhode Island Managed Eye Care, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island, 996 A.2d 684 (R.I. 2010)

Key Insight: Supreme court affirmed admission of ?membership data reports? generated from plaintiff?s database as business records and rejected defendant?s arguments that they lacked the necessary guarantees of trustworthiness where the records were relied upon in the usual course of business and where evidence indicated the software had been calibrated to ensure accuracy, among other things, and where the records were properly authenticated by testimony regarding the manner in which they were created and evidence the system had been producing accurate results

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ?Membership data reports? generated from plaintiff?s database

Univ. Sports Publ?ns Co. v. Playmakers Media Co., 2010 WL 2802322 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2010)

Key Insight: Where the issue before the court was whether defendant had intentionally accessed plaintiff?s database without authorization, court relied on an adverse inference arising from defendant?s intentional destruction of a laptop which would have provided key evidence and held that a genuine issue of material fact existed such that summary judgment was not appropriate

Nature of Case: Alleged violations of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

Solarbridge Tech., Inc. v. Doe, 2010 WL 3419189 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2010)

Key Insight: Court granted leave to subpoena internet service providers to obtain information to reveal the identify of defendant John Doe where plaintiff adequately identified defendant Doe as an individual that accessed and disclosed plaintiff?s confidential information to a competitor; identified its steps to identify the defendant in another fashion (including attempting to contact defendant doe at the email address from which the confidential materials were sent, searching public records, contacting competitors, etc.); established to the court?s satisfaction that its suit could withstand a motion to dismiss; and showed a reasonable likelihood that the discovery would lead to the information necessary to I.D. the defendant and make service possible

Nature of Case: Violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Identity of ISP subscriber

Biax Corp. v. Nvidia Corp., 2010 WL 3777540 (D. Colo. Sept. 21, 2010)

Key Insight: In an opinion addressing numerous discovery issues, the court granted in part plaintiff?s motion to compel and ordered the parties to submit a status report, preferably jointly, proposing a discreet number of proposed custodians and search terms, and to submit a joint-cost sharing agreement ?for the hefty cost of searching electronic files as represented by [defendant] with an accompanying affidavit in support of the anticipated costs?; court reasoned in footnote that ?justice require[ed]? cost sharing in light of the expense of searching electronic files and in light of the amount of documentation already produced by the defendant

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Lunts v. Rochester City School Dist., 2010 WL 2786519 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendants denied plaintiffs? spoliation allegations and opposed their motion for sanctions by asserting that all responsive emails had been produced, court ordered defendants to comply with a prior order requiring defense counsel to submit a declaration indicating whether any relevant ESI had been withheld and why and to provide a privilege log for any such documents and to provide a privilege log for three emails previously submitted for in camera review; failure to submit the declaration or the privilege log by a date certain would result in a $500 sanction for each violation

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

In re Air Cargo Shipping Servs. Antitrust Litig., 2010 WL 2976220 (E.D.N.Y. July 23, 2010)

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel production of ESI from South Africa, despite the country?s strict blocking statute, where the information was relevant, the request was sufficiently narrow and not shown to be burdensome, the US interest in enforcing its antitrust laws trumped South Africa?s enforcement of their blocking statute, there was no evidence of hardship to the producing party absent an unsubstantiated threat of sanctions, and where there was no alternative source from which to obtain the information

Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI in foreign jurisdiction

Oce N. Am., Inc. v. Brazeau, 2010 WL 5033310 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2010)

Key Insight: Court rejected objections to the Magistrate Judge?s recommendation that plaintiff?s motion for a preliminary injunction be denied and, addressing plaintiff?s assertions that an evidentiary gap regarding defendant?s alleged misappropriation of information could be filled by adverse inference resulting from defendant?s failure to preserve instant messages, declined to impose such an inference where defendant mistakenly believe that the messages were automatically preserved and, upon learning otherwise, made changes to preserve going forward and thus plaintiffs were unable to show a culpable state of mind and where the alleged spoliation caused little harm in light of the availability of other evidence

Nature of Case: Breach of non-competition agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Instant messages

Govan Brown & Assoc., Ltd. v. Does 1&2, 2010 WL 3076295 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2010)

Key Insight: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ? 1782, court granted in part plaintiff?s application to conduct discovery in a foreign proceeding and ordered that plaintiff may serve upon Google, Inc. a subpoena seeking the IP address associated with an account from which an allegedly defamatory email was sent, but denied the application to the extent it sought to serve a subpoena for information related to an email sent from a separate account that merely read, ?Have a nice day? and which could not form the basis for a cause of action under the laws of Canda; to the extent the IP addresses for the two email accounts was the same, however, Google would be allowed to disclosure that information

Camesi v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 2010 WL 3718867 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 20, 2010)

Key Insight: Stating that ?it is defendant?s responsibility to demonstrate objectively reasonable compliance? with the rules regarding ESI, the court found that defendants had failed to do so and denied their motion for a protective order; granting plaintiff?s motion to compel, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer to identify custodians for the purpose of limited discovery/sampling and to identify search terms to be utilized; court ordered defendants to identify potentially responsive ESI sources and to provide a reasonable description of the information stored therein in compliance with Local Rule 26.2

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.