Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Mitchell Eng?g. v. City of San Francisco, 2010 WL 2951856 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2010)
2
Kohler v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs., Inc., 2010 WL 709182 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2010)
3
Universal Del., Inc. v. Comdata Corp., 2010 WL 1381225 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2010)
4
Commonwealth v. Williams, 926 N.E.2d 1162 (Mass. 2010)
5
Universal Del. v. Comdata Corp., 2010 WL 2330284 (E.D. Pa. June 4, 2010)
6
Moore v. Napolitano, 723 F. Supp. 2d 167 (D.D.C. 2010)
7
Boyd v. Toyobo Am., Inc. (In Re Second Chance Body Armor, Inc.) 2010 WL 3168643 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. July 29, 2010)
8
Kaufman v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., Inc., 2010 WL 3365921 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2010)
9
Cenveo Corp. v. S. Graphic Sys., Inc., 2010 WL 3893709 (D. Minn. Sept. 30, 2010)
10
Oto Software, Inc. v. Highwall Techs., LLC, 2010 WL 3842434 (D. Colo. Aug. 6, 2010)

Mitchell Eng?g. v. City of San Francisco, 2010 WL 2951856 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2010)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff offered to produce hard copy ?job files? for non-city projects as an alternative to conducting key word searching of 25 custodians to identify emails related to non-city projects but where defendant objected that hard copy was less searchable and would not contain all relevant emails, court denied defendant?s motion to compel keyword searching and production of ESI citing the more than two month delay since the issue was first raised, the close proximity of trial, and the court?s inability to determine the relevance of the 188 proposed search terms and ordered plaintiff?s production of hard copy files

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI, hard copy

Kohler v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs., Inc., 2010 WL 709182 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2010)

Key Insight: Appellate court upheld ruling that copies of website attached to affidavit attempting to establish contacts sufficient for personal jurisdiction were not authenticated and therefore inadmissible where affiant asserted that the pages were copies of defendant?s website but failed to present evidence showing the website was created by defendant or that the statements in the printouts were made by persons authorized to speak on defendant?s behalf; court noted that ?self-authenticating? provisions in Evidence Code ?operates to establish only that a computer?s print function has worked properly. The presumption does not operate to establish the accuracy of the printed information.?

Nature of Case: Claims arising from death of patient while in nursing facility

Electronic Data Involved: Printed pages from website

Universal Del., Inc. v. Comdata Corp., 2010 WL 1381225 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2010)

Key Insight: Where third-party (and former defendant) signed stipulation to preserve and produce ESI as if still a party to the litigation and later sought reimbursement for the review and production of data in a particular database, court ordered a database be created comprised of the four custodians at issue, that plaintiff pay $4085 to the vendor as a ?start-up fee? (pursuant to their agreement to do so), and that plaintiff and third-party split the remaining costs of creating the database, but ordered third-party to bear the costs of its own review prior to production

Nature of Case: Antitrist litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Commonwealth v. Williams, 926 N.E.2d 1162 (Mass. 2010)

Key Insight: Where MySpace messages were admitted into evidence upon the testimony of the recipient which established that the messages were sent by someone with access to the alleged sender?s MySpace page but that did not establish the identity of the person who actually sent the communications, appellate court ruled the messages were admitted in error, but that the error did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; conviction was affirmed

Nature of Case: Appeal of murder conviction

Electronic Data Involved: MySpace messages

Universal Del. v. Comdata Corp., 2010 WL 2330284 (E.D. Pa. June 4, 2010)

Key Insight: Defendant?s motion for a protective order precluding compliance with plaintiff?s? subpoena duces tecum was denied where defendant failed to establish the irrelevance of the data sought and failed to establish the unduly burdensome nature of producing the information requested or to assert that the information was not reasonably accessible and where the court determined that an existing protective order was sufficient to protect any confidential information produced

Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI, hard copy

Moore v. Napolitano, 723 F. Supp. 2d 167 (D.D.C. 2010)

Key Insight: District court upheld sanction precluding defendant from presenting evidence of non-discriminatory reasons for non-promotion upon a prima facie showing of disparate treatment where defendant failed to conduct a reasonable search for responsive paper documents, despite a court order to do so, including providing ?ambiguous and deficient? search instructions to employees; failing to follow up when employees failed to uncover responsive information; and failing to credibly explain defendant?s search efforts, and where the Magistrate Judge properly concluded the sanction was proportional to the offense(s)

Nature of Case: Putative class action for discriminatory non-promotion

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy

Boyd v. Toyobo Am., Inc. (In Re Second Chance Body Armor, Inc.) 2010 WL 3168643 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. July 29, 2010)

Key Insight: Court found email had not been properly authenticated where the email was not self authenticating and where the email was a purely internal communication between employees of a third party company and thus could not be authenticated by the defense witness who was not an employee of that company, was not listed as a recipient of the email, and testified that he had never seen the document before

Nature of Case: Adversarial action in Bankruptcy

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Kaufman v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., Inc., 2010 WL 3365921 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant admitted that information regarding potential class members had been deleted pursuant to its regular information management practice and indicated that some (but not all) information could be retrieved from backup tapes, the court acknowledged defendant?s duty to preserve but reasoned the culpability for such deletions was ?somewhat lessened? because no one had requested that defendant alter is retention policies and because the deletions occurred ?pursuant to the regular operation? of those policies and determined that no conclusions could be reached on the record provided but that ?the court may consider imposing a remedy in any findings regarding the fairness of settlement?

Nature of Case: Class action challenging certain fees assessed on American Express-issued gift cards

Electronic Data Involved: Customer-identifying information

Cenveo Corp. v. S. Graphic Sys., Inc., 2010 WL 3893709 (D. Minn. Sept. 30, 2010)

Key Insight: For CFO?s intentional destruction of evidence to defeat litigation despite a duty to preserve, the district court judge adopted the magistrate judge?s recommendation and imposed a $100,000 fine and found that more drastic sanctions were not warranted where the resulting prejudice was mitigated by the availability of all the defendants and other witnesses for questioning

Nature of Case: Tortious interference with business relationships, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Oto Software, Inc. v. Highwall Techs., LLC, 2010 WL 3842434 (D. Colo. Aug. 6, 2010)

Key Insight: Court granted in part plaintiff?s motion for sanctions where defendant Highwall breached its obligation to preserve information related to the underlying royalty dispute following receipt of a letter which triggered the duty to preserve and ordered that discovery be re-opened and that defendant Highwall bear the costs but also found that the duty to preserve documents related to the development of allegedly infringing software was not triggered until the filing of the complaint and that no spoliation had occurred; court found purchaser of Highwall?s assets during pendency of the royalty dispute had no duty to preserve where the software at issue was excluded from purchaser?s acquisition

Nature of Case: Royalty dispute, copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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