Case Summaries – Page 235 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re IKB Deutsche Industrie Bank AG, 2010 WL 1526070 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Denying third-party corporation?s motion to quash a subpoena, court rejected corporation?s claims of undue burden where the discovery sought was relevant to the foreign litigation and where the support for claims of burden was conclusory and failed to sufficiently identify the basis for the corporation?s objection or ?connect a dollar amount to the particular tasks that would be necessary to provide the requested information? and thus, the court was ?effectively prevented from making a meaningful determination as to whether the financial costs is unreasonable?

Nature of Case: Foreign litigation claiming $1.5 billion in damages arising from “Put Option Agreement”

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Nissan N.Am., Inc. v. Johnson Elec. N. Am., Inc., 2010 WL 1790354 (E.D. Mich. May 5, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Upon defendant?s motion to compel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B), court ordered plaintiff to supplement its discovery to specifically identify sources of ESI claimed to be ?not reasonably accessible? and to provide the anticipated costs and efforts involved in retrieving that ESI

Nature of Case: Defective design of air conditioner components leading to recall

Electronic Data Involved: Not reasonably accessible ESI

Xiao Yang Chen v. Fischer, 901 N.Y.S.2d 682 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff ?contumaciously defied discovery orders? by deleting materials from her hard drive that she had been directed to produce, trial court ?improvidently exercised its discretion? by failing to dismiss all of plaintiff?s claims; appellate court reversed and entered order dismissing plaintiff?s remaining claims

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on hard drive

CE Design Ltd. v. Cy?s Crabhouse N., Inc., 2010 WL 2365162 (N.D. Ill. June 11, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant alleged plaintiff had violated the protective order by using information contained on a hard drive and backup tapes provided by a third party to initiate additional lawsuits, court denied defendant?s motion to dismiss absent evidence of prejudice but granted third party?s motion for protective order preventing such use going forward; for plaintiff?s failure to supplement discovery, court denied motion for dismissal but gave permission for defendant?s expert to supplement report based on newly-obtained information

Nature of Case: Violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI contained on hard drive, backup tapes

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Glenmark Pharm. Inc., USA, 2010 WL 2652412 (D.N.J. July 1, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to find spoliation had occurred as to specific emails believed by plaintiff to have been withheld or destroyed by defendant absent sufficient evidence but, relying on defendant?s claims of work-product immunity as to a document created in Feb. 2006, found that defendant anticipated litigation as of that time and imposed an adverse inference as to any documents systematically destroyed after that date pursuant to defendant?s policy of maintaining electronic documents for only one month

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

State v. Norris, 236 P.3d 225 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where State refused to produce images to be used against defendant in court and, to avoid being subject to subpoena, gave possession of the evidence to the federal government who was not subject to subpoena, the appellate court granted defendant?s petition for discretionary review, stayed the trial court?s proceedings, and held that the Adam Walsh Act (a federal statue restricting copying and distribution of image of child pornography in federal court proceedings) does not preempt state law requiring full disclosure of the State?s evidence; the case was remanded for further proceedings

Nature of Case: Sex offenses against minors

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive, copies of electronic images

Kahmout v. Vons Cos., Inc., 2010 WL 3751466 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for spoliation sanctions for defendant?s alleged spoliation of surveillance video where in the case of an incident the surveillance video was to be copied from the hard drive it was stored on to a CD, but where there was insufficient evidence that such a CD was ever made or existed, and where plaintiff failed to contact defendant regarding her lawsuit until 5 months had passed – a period of time far longer than the video would have been preserved on the hard drive in the usual course of business

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Managed Care Solutions, Inc. v. Essent Healthcare, Inc., 2010 WL 3368654 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where the defendant was negligent in its failure to preserve potentially relevant emails and attachments by failing to timely issue a litigation hold and where those emails and attachments were lost as the result of an automatic deletion pursuant to defendant?s document retention policy, the court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where the court determined the evidence was not ?crucial? to plaintiff?s case and where there was no direct or circumstantial evidence of bad faith; court noted that the ruling did not foreclose the possibility that plaintiff could introduce evidence of defendant?s failure to retain relevant documents at trial

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails and attachments

VFI Assoc., LLC v. Lobo Mach. Corp., 2010 WL 4716215 (W.D. Va. Nov. 15, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: For defendant?s knowing refusal to produce responsive data and bad faith alteration of data in an effort to hide relevant evidence, the court declined to impose terminating sanctions but precluded defendants from offering any “defense, evidence, or argument” as to several disputed issues and indicated it willingness to ?take under advisement? additional sanctions, including monetary sanctions, a finding of contempt of court, and a possible adverse inference instruction [on Nov. 22, 2010, a second opinion was issued, identical to the first except that the footnote regarding the court’s consideration of future sanctions discussed only an adverse inference instruction and did not include mention of a finding of contempt or monetary sanctions, 2010 WL 4868110]

Nature of Case: Allegations that business manager accepted kickbacks from equipment supplier

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Trickey v. Kaman Indus. Techs. Corp., 2010 WL 5067421 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 6, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where, in response to discovery requests, defendant?s employees manually selected and preserved all potentially relevant documents that were on their computers, in the live database, or archived but where defendant did not create a mirror image of its email server or other data, the court indicated its ?concern? but ?[could not] say that [defendant?s] efforts under the circumstances were sanctionable?, and noted that ?critically, plaintiff has not made spoliation claims? and that defendant had already attempted to remedy plaintiff?s concerns by hiring a forensic expert to examine its data (including deleted data) for relevant information

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Catagory:Case Summaries