Catagory:Case Summaries

1
People v. Clevenstine, 891 N.Y.S.2d 511 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2
Synventive Molding Solutions, Inc. v. Husky Injection Molding Sys., Inc., 262 F.R.D. 365 (D. Va. 2009)
3
In re Interest of B.H., 2009 WL 2195930 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 24, 2009)
4
Continental Group, Inc. v. KW Prop. Mgmt., 2009 WL 425945 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2009)
5
Clubcom, LLC v. Captive Media, Inc., 2009 WL 1885712 (W.D. Pa. June 30, 2009)
6
Gotlin v. Lederman, 2010 WL 2843380 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2009)
7
Cimaglia v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 2009 387266 (C.D. Ill. Feb. 13, 2009)
8
Rohm and Hass, Co. v. Dow Chem., Co., 2009 WL 537195 (Del. Ch. Feb. 26, 2009) (Unpublished)
9
Am. Family Mut. Ins., Co. v. Roth, 2009 WL 982788 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2009)
10
Stirling Bridge, LLC v. Porter, 2009 WL 125549 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 7, 2009)

People v. Clevenstine, 891 N.Y.S.2d 511 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Key Insight: Stating that ?authenticity is established by proof that the offered evidence is genuine and that there has been no tampering with it,? and that ?the foundation necessary to establish these elements may differ according to the evidence,? court found computer disk containing instant messages was properly authenticated and admitted into evidence where ?both victims testified they had engaged in instant messaging with defendant,? where an investigator testified that he had retrieved the messages from defendant?s computer, where MySpace ?explained the messages?had been exchanged by users of the accounts created by the defendant and the victims,? and where his wife recalled seeing such conversations on defendant?s computer

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Disk containing instant messages

Synventive Molding Solutions, Inc. v. Husky Injection Molding Sys., Inc., 262 F.R.D. 365 (D. Va. 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to issue a litigation hold, court ordered plaintiff to issue a litigation hold as to those personnel likely to possess discoverable evidence and to file a sworn declaration describing whether any files had been lost, the methods use to determine the existence of such a loss, the extend of the loss, and the nature of the litigation hold placed in response to the present order; court found plaintiff?s production of documents ?problematic? where it failed to organize the production according to Rule 34 and ordered plaintiff to ?amend? its production to comply; acknowledging that ?the identities of those in control of certain documents is information that may be as relevant as the documents? [substance]?, court ordered search and production of President?s documents despite claims that those documents were produced from other custodians

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Interest of B.H., 2009 WL 2195930 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 24, 2009)

Key Insight: Court found edited copy of surveillance tape was properly authenticated and admitted where, pursuant to the N.J. Best Evidence Rule, duplicates are admissible to the same extent as the original unless a question is raised as to the authenticity of the original, which defendant did not do, and where the testimony of the patrolman who viewed the original surveillance tape established that the copy was an accurate duplication of the pertinent parts of the original tape, and where there was no showing of unfairness in the production of the edited tape rather than the original

Nature of Case: Criminal / Robbery

Electronic Data Involved: Copy of surveillance tape

Continental Group, Inc. v. KW Prop. Mgmt., 2009 WL 425945 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2009)

Key Insight: Where parties failed to establish filtering protocol to segregate privileged materials from portable devices because of a disagreement as to the meaning of the court?s prior order, court ordered production of images of defendant?s portable devices to plaintiff prior to performing a privilege review but held that such production would not result in waiver and indicated its belief that no prejudice to defendant?s would result, despite acknowledgement that plaintiff would have ?a few days to view the images which may contain privileged material? prior to defendants identification of privileged material

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI on portable devices

Clubcom, LLC v. Captive Media, Inc., 2009 WL 1885712 (W.D. Pa. June 30, 2009)

Key Insight: Where four privileged emails were produced among 4000 documents (in hard copy), where there was no indication that plaintiff produced the documents intentionally or failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent disclosure, and where plaintiff immediately took reasonable steps to rectify the error, court ruled privilege was not waived pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502(b)

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

Gotlin v. Lederman, 2010 WL 2843380 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2009)

Key Insight: As sanction for plaintiff?s delayed production of untranslated medical records after the close of discovery, court precluded use of the late-disclosed records upon reasoning that the late disclosure was not substantially justified and resulted in prejudice to the defendants and upon reasoning that to allow such disclosure would result in continued delay of the proceedings in light of likely need to re-open expert disclosure, among other things

Electronic Data Involved: Late produced CD containing untranslated medical records

Cimaglia v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 2009 387266 (C.D. Ill. Feb. 13, 2009)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motion for preservation order and immediate production of data related to 2009 railroad crossing failure, finding that 2009 data was not relevant to 2004 incident at issue in light of defendants? lack of intention to present evidence that the system could not fail, and where court found 2009 data was not relevant to rebut defendants? assertions regarding lack of failure in 2004 or admissible to establish ?a routine practice of willful conduct?

Nature of Case: Train collision

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copies of downloads from event recorders at railroad crossing

Rohm and Hass, Co. v. Dow Chem., Co., 2009 WL 537195 (Del. Ch. Feb. 26, 2009) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Chancellor denied motion to compel production of Litigation Support Model program designed to assist defendant in settlement analysis where program was prepared in anticipation of litigation and where plaintiff failed to establish necessary showing of substantial need or the inability to obtain the substantial equivalent elsewhere; recognizing sensitive nature of Enterprise Model program used for corporate decision making and strategy, court denied defendants motion for a protective order but ordered plaintiffs to limit disclosure of that material to essential persons and ordered experts to certify their understanding of the limitations of the information?s use and their obligation of confidentiality prior to viewing the information

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Dynamic program models

Am. Family Mut. Ins., Co. v. Roth, 2009 WL 982788 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendant discarded a hard drive that had been ordered produced for inspection, court rejected evidence of defendant?s lack of ?know-how? or ?resources? to maintain the hard drive in light of the lack of expense or effort required beyond physical retention and held defendant in contempt of court; court also found grounds for contempt where evidence ordered destroyed or turned over to plaintiffs was discovered on defendants? hard drives upon forensic inspection; where plaintiffs presented ?clear and convincing evidence? that defendants intentionally destroyed evidence by discarding relevant hard drives subject to a duty to preserve, court found spoliation had occurred and ordered an adverse inference instruction but declined to order default judgment where prejudice did not render plaintiffs unable to prove their case

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of customer information

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, ESI

Stirling Bridge, LLC v. Porter, 2009 WL 125549 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 7, 2009)

Key Insight: No abuse of discretion in granting defendant?s motion for summary judgment on the issue of destruction of evidence where defendant offered uncontroverted evidence that his partner destroyed computers, without defendant?s involvement, because they were ?obsolete? and where plaintiffs failed to ?raise a disputed issue of material fact regarding [defendant?s] responsibility for [his partner?s] destruction of the computer and other electronic evidence?

Nature of Case: Legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and securities fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Computers (hard drives)

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