Catagory:Case Summaries

1
United States v. Perraud, 2010 WL 228013 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2010)
2
Actionlink, LLC v. Sorgenfrei, 2010 WL 395243 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 27, 2010)
3
Edelen v. Campbell Soup Co., 2010 WL 774186 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 2, 2010)
4
State v. Durham, 2010 WL 1254355 (Ohio App. Ct. Apr. 1, 2010)
5
One River Place Condo Assoc., Inc. v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., 2010 WL 235028 (E.D. La. Jan. 14, 2010)
6
Martinez-Hernandez v. Butterball LLC, 2010 2089251 (E.D.N.C. May 21, 2010)
7
Midkiff v. Commonwealth, 694 S.E.2d 576 (Va. 2010)
8
Schreiber v. Schreiber, 2010 WL 2735672 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 25, 2010)
9
Harkabi v. Sandisk Corp., 08 Civ. 8203 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y. Aug, 23, 2010)
10
David v. Signal Int., LLC, 2010 WL 2723180 (E.D. La. July 6, 2010)

United States v. Perraud, 2010 WL 228013 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2010)

Key Insight: Despite finding Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 did not require the government to identify the evidence upon which it intended to rely at trial where defendants claimed the government had attempted to overwhelm them by providing access to a database containing millions of documents, and despite government?s production of an index to the database and directions to the materials it deemed most relevant, magistrate recommended the government be ordered to provide defendants with an exhibit list and hard copies of the exhibits ten days before trial, for the government to supplement that list as necessary, and for the government to comply in good faith where the government had previously offered to supply the same

Nature of Case: Conspiracy to destroy records and destruction of records

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Actionlink, LLC v. Sorgenfrei, 2010 WL 395243 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 27, 2010)

Key Insight: Where issues of material fact existed as to the willfulness of defendant?s destruction of potentially relevant ESI and as to whether such destruction ?disrupted? plaintiff?s case, court denied defendant?s motion for summary judgment as to its claim of spoliation and denied plaintiff?s request for an adverse inference as to claims 1 through 4, but indicated its willingness to entertain a motion for an appropriate jury instruction at trial

Nature of Case: Breach of confidentiality agreement and related claims, independant cause of action for spoliation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Edelen v. Campbell Soup Co., 2010 WL 774186 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 2, 2010)

Key Insight: Court ordered 4 pages of privileged documents be returned to defendants where the pages were privileged on their face and inadvertently produced (4 pages of privileged material were produced among 2000 pages and the documents were subject to review by three attorneys prior to production) and where counsel immediately sought their return upon discovery of their production; court ordered narrowing of search terms and fewer custodians upon defendants? objection to plaintiffs? proposed scope (including 55 custodians and 50 search terms) where plaintiff failed to respond to the objection within the ten day period provided by the court

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, privileged materials

State v. Durham, 2010 WL 1254355 (Ohio App. Ct. Apr. 1, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant appealed his conviction and argued the State?s failure to preserve videotape depicting a struggle between police and defendant was a violation of due process, court found the videotape was not subject to production pursuant to Brady absent evidence that it contained ?materially exculpatory evidence?, and that absent evidence of bad faith, defendant could not show a due process violation arising from the destruction of ?potentially useful? evidence

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

One River Place Condo Assoc., Inc. v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., 2010 WL 235028 (E.D. La. Jan. 14, 2010)

Key Insight: Addressing the question of whether document imaging costs were recoverable under 28 USC ? 1920, court noted that ?[t]oday?s technologies allow counsel to exchange ?copies? of [documents for use in the case] electronically, reducing time and cost? and that there was no indication that electronic production was more expensive or duplicative of hard copy costs, and held that it ?would not punish [plaintiff] for choosing the more efficient, electronic method of producing costs? and that plaintiff?s document imaging costs were therefore recoverable under the statute

Nature of Case: Claims arising from property damage resulting from Hurrican Katrina

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Martinez-Hernandez v. Butterball LLC, 2010 2089251 (E.D.N.C. May 21, 2010)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s search requests were unreasonable and unduly burdensome and where defendant?s proposed ESI search could ?be reasonably expanded to search for relevant information without becoming unduly burdensome?, court ordered the parties to continue negotiating to identify 25 agreed upon search terms to search relevant custodians? reasonably accessible data; court found backup tapes ?not readily accessible because of undue burden or cost? and ordered defendant to run the agreed upon search terms ?only on reasonably accessible sources, such as active and archived data of network computers?

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Midkiff v. Commonwealth, 694 S.E.2d 576 (Va. 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant challenged admission of hard copy images and video reproduced from electronic files on DVD which were copied from hard drives found in defendant?s computer, Supreme Court declined to extend best evidence rule to require admission of the hard drives themselves and, where forensic expert testified to the integrity of the copying process and where testimony was presented that verified the reproductions were accurate representations of the illicit material for which defendant was charged, court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals that the evidence was properly admitted

Nature of Case: Possession of child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Images copied from DVDS with in turn were copied from original hard drives

Schreiber v. Schreiber, 2010 WL 2735672 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 25, 2010)

Key Insight: In divorce proceedings, court denied wife?s motion for access to husband?s office hard drive where wife was not entitled to ?unrestricted turnover? of the drive and failed to propose a discover/issue resolution protocol to allow for the protection of privileged and private material but allowed for possible renewal of the motion, which must contain a proper discovery protocol, and provided specific instruction for the proper content of the same

Nature of Case: Matrimonial action/divorce

Electronic Data Involved: Husband’s office hard drive

Harkabi v. Sandisk Corp., 08 Civ. 8203 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y. Aug, 23, 2010)

Key Insight: For failing to preserve the laptops issued to plaintiffs while working for defendant, the court found defendant was ?at a minimum? negligent and indicated that an adverse inference would be crafted after all the evidence had been received. For ?prolonged delay? in producing relevant emails the court denied terminating sanctions but ordered monetary sanctions in the amount of $150,000

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing

Electronic Data Involved: Data on laptops, emails

David v. Signal Int., LLC, 2010 WL 2723180 (E.D. La. July 6, 2010)

Key Insight: Court declined to hold defendant in contempt for its unilateral redactions of alleged personal and confidential information but, upon evidence of over-redacting, ordered plaintiffs to identify approximately 3000 documents (a number provided by plaintiffs) to be sent to defendant for verification of proper redacting and for the parties to confer to fashion an appropriate protective with regard to the documents redacted and/or withheld on the ground proprietary or business confidentiality privilege

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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