Catagory:Case Summaries

1
V. Mane Fils, S.A. v. Int?l Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., 2009 WL 1968925 (July 1, 2009)
2
Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs. Co., 2009 WL 2252151 (D. Md. July 28, 2009)
3
Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc., 2009 WL 3059090 (9th Cir. Sept. 24, 2009) (Unpublished)
4
Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Co., 2009 WL 3052680 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2009)
5
Gray v. State, 2009 WL 3645055 (Tex. App. Nov. 4, 2009) (Unpublished)
6
Laethem Equip. Co. v. Deere & Co., 2009 WL 3064663 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 21, 2009)
7
Gutierrez-Bonilla v. Target Corp., 2009 WL 5062116 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2009)
8
Silverstein v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2009 WL 4949959 (D. Colo. Dec. 14, 2009)
9
Snoznik v. Jeld-Wen, 259 F.R.D. 217 (W.D.N.C. 2009)
10
Canton v. Kmart Corp., 2009 WL 2058908 (V.I. July 13, 2009)

V. Mane Fils, S.A. v. Int?l Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., 2009 WL 1968925 (July 1, 2009)

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of post-suit privileged and work product documents, despite defendant?s assertion of the affirmative defense of reliance on advice of counsel and its prior production of pre-suit privileged and work product documents, where the analysis of the willfulness of the infringement focused on pre-litigation activities and where, per a prior court order, defendant had not been segregating or logging such documents and so production would be a significant burden

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs. Co., 2009 WL 2252151 (D. Md. July 28, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs presented evidence of defendants? discovery violations, including defendants? failure to produce all relevant evidence in its possession and ?using computers to generate records for some plaintiffs ?in a piecemeal fashion??, among other things, court granted plaintiffs motion to compel and also scheduled show cause hearing for defendants to show why the court should not order as a sanction ?that Plaintiffs be permitted, at the expense of [the defendants] and their counsel, to have access to a mirror image, forensic copy of the electronically stored information of [the defendants] in order to search for documents responsive to their production requests?

Nature of Case: Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc., 2009 WL 3059090 (9th Cir. Sept. 24, 2009) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: District court did not abuse discretion in ordering default judgment where court found defendant deliberately destroyed computer servers, and with it certain ESI that had been requested by the plaintiff, where such destruction demonstrated the necessary ?willfulness, bad faith and fault? to support such a sanction, where the prejudice caused by the failure to produce the ESI was ?not excused? by the fact that plaintiff already possessed some of the destroyed documents, and where less severe sanctions were previously awarded and defendant had been warned of the possibility of stricter sanctions in future

Nature of Case: Infringement litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI stored on server

Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Co., 2009 WL 3052680 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2009)

Key Insight: Where a claims specialist for defendant forwarded counsel?s coverage opinion to third party, copied a claims manager for her company in the communication, discussed the opinion with the third party, and made no claim of privilege until the document was utilized in plaintiff?s motion for summary judgment, court found that the production was not inadvertent and found that the voluntary communication of the coverage opinion waived defendant?s claim of attorney-client privilege and work product; court?s opinion specifically rejected defendant?s reliance on Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(B)

Nature of Case: Insurance litigation regarding coverage obligations

Electronic Data Involved: Email forwarding counsel’s coverage opinion

Gray v. State, 2009 WL 3645055 (Tex. App. Nov. 4, 2009) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Emails were properly authenticated by defendant?s acknowledgment that he sent the emails at issue during a recorded interview with detectives, by the victim?s testimony that she was familiar with defendant?s email address and signature and by defendant?s own offering of emails between himself and the victim which contained identical email addresses to those emails challenged on appeal

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Laethem Equip. Co. v. Deere & Co., 2009 WL 3064663 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 21, 2009)

Key Insight: Adopting magistrate?s recommendation, district court judge denied defendant?s motion for sanctions based upon plaintiff?s alleged discovery misconduct, including spoliation and delay, where defendant ?failed to establish that its defenses have been materially prejudiced? and where plaintiff ?refuted to [magistrate?s] satisfaction the contention of defense counsel that they engaged in spoliation of material?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, statutory violations, tortious interference

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Gutierrez-Bonilla v. Target Corp., 2009 WL 5062116 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to establish the existence of the allegedly destroyed surveillance tape and where, even had the existence of such a tape been established, plaintiff failed to serve any request for preservation, court found plaintiff failed to establish a duty of preservation or that the allegedly spoliated evidence could have supported her case; court also found plaintiff failed to establish defendants? culpable state of mind where, in light of the lack of notice of preservation, the tape would have been recycled in the usual course of business and denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape

Silverstein v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2009 WL 4949959 (D. Colo. Dec. 14, 2009)

Key Insight: Defendants waived claims of privilege as to specific memorandum where, despite initially identifying the memorandum as privileged and placing it on the privilege log, defendants subsequently produced the memorandum and, upon realizing their mistake, failed to properly and timely re-assert the privilege or to take reasonable steps ?rectify the erroneous disclosure?; waiver was intentional where defendant failed for nearly 11 months to clarify the status of the document following its production despite a ready ability to do so and, where plaintiff was prejudiced as a result, court found ?fairness dictat[ed]? that plaintiff be allowed to proceed with discovery and that ?to the extent questions and documents ?concern the same subject matter? as that disclosed in the [memorandum], ?they ought in fairness to be considered together.??

Nature of Case: Constitutional claims

Electronic Data Involved: Privilege memorandum

Snoznik v. Jeld-Wen, 259 F.R.D. 217 (W.D.N.C. 2009)

Key Insight: Where testifying expert created and utilized electronic templates which he considered proprietary to create his report, court granted expert?s motion for a protective order and declined to compel production of the templates upon finding that the templates were not relevant to the actual issues at trial, that the defendant failed to show a need for the templates in light of expert?s production of underlying data used to create his report, that the expert properly sought a protective order to address the issues of confidentiality, and that the potential harm to the expert outweighed the potential (non-existent) harm to defendant

Nature of Case: Negligence, breach of implied warranty and express warranty and loss of consortium

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic templates used to create expert report

Canton v. Kmart Corp., 2009 WL 2058908 (V.I. July 13, 2009)

Key Insight: Court declined to order adverse inference for destruction/loss of surveillance video where plaintiff failed to establish that such a video existed and that defendant therefore had a duty to preserve it; court ordered adverse inference for defendant?s inability to produce photographs upon finding defendant did not take ?reasonable precautions? to preserve the evidence despite knowing that litigation was reasonably foreseeable

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