Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Delta Fin. Corp. v. Morrison, 894 N.Y.S.2d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2
People v. Taylor, 922 N.E.2d 1235 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)
3
State v. Huggett, 783 N.W.2d 675 (Wis. App. Ct. 2010)
4
Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co, 2010 WL 1957802 (S.D. Ohio May 14, 2010)
5
King Pharm. Inc. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 2010 WL 2243872 (W.D. Va. June 2, 2010)
6
In re Global Technovations, Inc., 431 B.R. 739 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2010)
7
Felman Prod., Inc. v. Indus. Risk Insurers, 2010 WL 2944777 (S.D.W.Va. July 23, 2010)
8
Piccone v. Town of Webster, 2010 WL 3516581 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2010)
9
Rockwood v. SKF USA, Inc., 2010 WL 3860414 (D.N.H. Sept. 30, 2010)
10
Romero v. Allstate, 2010 WL 4138693 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 21, 2010)

Delta Fin. Corp. v. Morrison, 894 N.Y.S.2d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Key Insight: Where, upon en camera review, the court determined that counsel could not support his claim of privilege as to 55 emails and therefore sanctioned counsel $5000, appellate court affirmed the order and found the lower court had exercised proper discretion ?because [counsel?s] claim that the 55 e-mails were privileged was completely without merit in law and could not be supported by any reasonable argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.?

Nature of Case: Action to recover damages for breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

People v. Taylor, 922 N.E.2d 1235 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant objected that state failed to properly authenticate silent surveillance video, appellate court agreed and concluded that ?where no witness can testify as to the authentication of the recording as truly and accurately portraying what he or she has seen or heard, the requirements for a silent-witness foundation must be met?

Nature of Case: Theft of property less than $300

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

State v. Huggett, 783 N.W.2d 675 (Wis. App. Ct. 2010)

Key Insight: Where police confiscated cell phones from the defendant and a key witness which contained highly relevant and exculpatory messages but failed to preserve them, court reasoned that ?[b]y creating an expectation of preservation [in the mind of the defendant], the State became responsible for ensuring that it occurred? and that its failure to do so deprived the defendant of due process such that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate

Nature of Case: Charges arising from shooting of intruder, allegedly in self defense

Electronic Data Involved: Voice mail and text messages on cell phones

Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co, 2010 WL 1957802 (S.D. Ohio May 14, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant resisted plaintiff?s motion to compel additional searching based upon having already conducted an initial, agreed-upon keyword search and upon unsubstantiated claims that additional searching would be unduly burdensome regardless of prior efforts, court rejected defendant?s arguments absent a sufficient showing of burden, granted plaintiff?s motion, and ordered the parties to meet and confer to reach agreement regarding the searches

Nature of Case: Securities class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

King Pharm. Inc. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 2010 WL 2243872 (W.D. Va. June 2, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant produced a partially redacted document containing four inadvertently unredacted pages, court found that the disclosure met the test of 502(b) and that privilege was not waived ?in light of the low volume of production? and defendant?s prompt action to ?rectify the error? upon learning of the disclosure; court also stated that ?the fact that the document had been reviewed and partially redacted does not by itself prevent the disclosure from being inadvertent? and that ?[t]he nature of the mistake in disclosing a document is not limited by the rules, and logically ought to include mistaken redaction, as well as other types of mistakes that result in disclosure.?

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Four unredacted privileged pages of printed presentation

In re Global Technovations, Inc., 431 B.R. 739 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to establish plaintiffs? responsibility for destroying or losing any documents and failed to establish prejudice resulting from the loss, the court concluded that no sanctions were appropriate and denied defendants? renewed motion for sanctions; in so deciding, court declined to follow the standard for imposing an adverse inference previously set forth in Forest Labs, Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd. 2009 WL 998402 (E.D. Mich. 2009) which held that under some circumstances, ordinary negligence is sufficient culpability to impose an adverse inference

Nature of Case: Bankruptcy adversary proceeding

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Felman Prod., Inc. v. Indus. Risk Insurers, 2010 WL 2944777 (S.D.W.Va. July 23, 2010)

Key Insight: Upon plaintiff?s objection to the magistrate judge?s finding of waiver based upon plaintiff?s failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of privileged information, the district court found no error in fact or law and affirmed the order noting that ?the ridiculously high number of irrelevant communications and the large volume of privileged communications produced demonstrate a lack of reasonableness?

Nature of Case: Insurance litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

Piccone v. Town of Webster, 2010 WL 3516581 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2010)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a duty to preserve at the time of defendants? destruction of ESI; court denied defendants? motion for spoliation sanctions where defendants failed to establish the relevance of the emails at issue or any prejudice resulting from plaintiff?s failure to produce certain emails, particularly where defendant possessed its own copies; court denied defendants? motion to compel inspection of plaintiff?s computer but acknowledged their right to explore plaintiff?s preservation practices at deposition and ordered plaintiff to make a mirror image of her hard drive to be left in the custody of her attorney to assure preservation of ESI

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drive

Rockwood v. SKF USA, Inc., 2010 WL 3860414 (D.N.H. Sept. 30, 2010)

Key Insight: Court denied a motion for spoliation sanctions for loss of records following foreclosure on plaintiffs? company where plaintiff made a reasonable effort to ensure preservation of relevant data after the foreclosure, including requesting the data?s preservation and permission to copy relevant records, and where ultimately some (but not all) records were obtained via subpoena from the third-party purchaser of plaintiff?s former assets and defendant was unable to establish prejudice; court denied a motion for spoliation sanctions for plaintiffs? replacement of two crashed hard drives where the court could not conclude the plaintiffs intentionally or carelessly permitted the destruction, particularly in light of their attempts to recover some data with limited success; court denied spoliation sanctions for plaintiffs? use of CCleaner absent evidence that any data was actually deleted; despite the lack of prejudice resulting from one plaintiff?s admitted deletion of allegedly personal documents in light of those documents existence in hard copy, court imposed an ?adverse inference against [plaintiff?s] credibility as a witness? at trial citing the purpose of deterring similar misconduct in future

Nature of Case: Claims arising from failed business relationship

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

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