Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Lawson v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 2009 WL 499014 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 26, 2009)
2
Rodriquez-Monguio v. Ohio State Univ., 2009 WL 1575277 (S.D. Ohio June 3, 2009)
3
Gregorio v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 2009 WL 3756493 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2009)
4
Barton Group, Inc. v. NCR Corp., 2009 WL 6509348 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2009)
5
Ellington Credit Fund, Ltd. v. Select Portfolio Servs. Inc., 2009 WL 274483 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2009)
6
MSC Software Corp. v. Altair Eng?g, Inc., 2009 WL 426556 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 19, 2009)
7
In re Application of Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd., 2009 WL 119374 (D. Colo. Apr. 30, 2009)
8
In re Debusk, 2009 WL 1256891 (E.D. Tenn. May 1, 2009)
9
Averett v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 2009 WL 799638 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 24, 2009)
10
QuinStreet v. Ferguson, 2009 WL 1789433 (W.D. Wash. June 22, 2009)

Lawson v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 2009 WL 499014 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 26, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff denied wrongdoing resulting from its efforts to access password-protected files containing attorney-client material produced to plaintiff in discovery and relied in part on counsel?s approval of those actions, court ordered emails between plaintiff and counsel produced based on plaintiff?s reliance on those discussions and the ?need to unearth what actually transpired?; court indicated belief that intrusion into the attorney-client privilege was minimized by court?s en camera review of the emails before rendering its decision

Nature of Case: Action for unpaid commission

 

Rodriquez-Monguio v. Ohio State Univ., 2009 WL 1575277 (S.D. Ohio June 3, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendant inadvertently produced one privileged email among thousands of pages and did not actually discover such production until months later, despite plaintiff?s reference to the email in a single spaced 5 page letter, and where upon discovery of the inadvertent production defendant immediately sought the email?s return, court rejected plaintiff?s argument that defendant had waived privilege by failing to seek the email?s return within ten days, subject to the parties? clawback agreement, and ordered the email returned

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Gregorio v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 2009 WL 3756493 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2009)

Key Insight: Court found no attorney-client privilege protection preventing production of employee’s email write up of an accident where Illinois law makes clear that ?employees who supply only the factual bases upon which the decisionmakers predicate their opinions? are not within the protected ?control group? pursuant to the relevant legal test and the communication was therefore not privileged; court also found no protection in the work product doctrine where the write up was generated in the usual course of business and was not of a ?legal nature? and ?primarily concerned with legal assistance?

Electronic Data Involved: Employee’s email description of accident

Barton Group, Inc. v. NCR Corp., 2009 WL 6509348 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2009)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s request to compel defendant to categorize its production and identify which documents were responsive to which requests where plaintiff and defendant previously agreed that defendant would produce all documents from certain custodians without prior review and where plaintiff therefore could not simultaneously benefit from avoiding the risk that defendant would unilaterally filter out responsive documents while at the same time seeking to have defendant ?provide the kind of classification that plaintiff would have gotten had it made a different choice?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Ellington Credit Fund, Ltd. v. Select Portfolio Servs. Inc., 2009 WL 274483 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2009)

Key Insight: Despite plaintiffs? claim that they had ?already been prejudiced? by the ?confessed destruction? of ESI in its native format through defendant?s ?systematic purges? of its computer systems, court denied motion to lift stay of discovery and impose preservation order where defendant provided affidavit stating a litigation hold was imposed and that the ?regular document retention policy? had not been applied to information relating the loans at issue in the case, and where plaintiffs presented no evidence to the contrary

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

MSC Software Corp. v. Altair Eng?g, Inc., 2009 WL 426556 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 19, 2009)

Key Insight: Responding to several of plaintiff?s concerns regarding defendants? production of electronically stored information, special master recommended denial of plaintiff?s request for production of a new, updated database where plaintiff already received updates regarding changes made to the database, where accommodation of the request would require considerable effort by defendants, including stopping all user activity in the database and creating five copies of the information for dissemination to all parties, and where the requested production would make analysis of some key issues more difficult ? recommendation was adopted by the court

Nature of Case: Theft of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Database

In re Application of Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd., 2009 WL 119374 (D. Colo. Apr. 30, 2009)

Key Insight: Reasoning that electronic storage devices ?perform the same function as did a file cabinet in the pre-electronic era? and that they must therefore be searched ?just as they would have had to do had all the information been printed out and stored in hard copy format? and also reasoning that ?[t]he fact that duplicate documents may have been stored and maintained in more than one place is irrelevant to the duty to search all locations,? court ordered respondents to subpoenas to conduct additional searches of all electronic storage devices in their possession at the time of their response; where the sharing of production costs had been ordered, court required requesting party to post $1 million pre-judgment cost bond in light of the ?circumstances of the case? including respondents? expenditure of more than $2.5 million and fears that the requesting party would dispute their share and attempt to avoid payment

Nature of Case: Litigation between an international law firm and a new firm comprised of its former employees related to the new firm?s alleged interference in business relationships and breach of certain duties

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Debusk, 2009 WL 1256891 (E.D. Tenn. May 1, 2009)

Key Insight: District court affirmed bankruptcy court?s denial of debtor?s discharge for violations of 11 U.S.C. ? 727(a)(3), among other things, where debtor failed to preserve adequate records from which is financial condition or business transactions could be ascertained and where debtor failed to offer sufficient justification for such behavior beyond his own failure to adequately back up his electronic records and the subsequent loss of his records as the result of a computer virus

Nature of Case: Bankruptcy

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic records

Averett v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 2009 WL 799638 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 24, 2009)

Key Insight: Where the burden of searching all possible locations for a mention of plaintiff was overly burdensome in light of plaintiff?s 17 year history with the company and the unlikely possibility that additional relevant information would be discovered and where plaintiff failed to identify with particularity any documents she believed to exist or category of information likely to contain relevant information, among other things, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

QuinStreet v. Ferguson, 2009 WL 1789433 (W.D. Wash. June 22, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendant responded to plaintiff?s requests for production by producing a link to the responsive electronically stored information and where the link appeared to be thousands of pages of raw code and the emails could not be separated from one another, court ordered re-production of the information in a reasonably readable format or for defendant to cooperate to allow conversion of the ESI by a third party, for defendant to number each email to indicate to which request it was responsive, and for a statement regarding whether production was complete

Nature of Case: Defamation, interference with contractual relations, and intentional interference with prospective economic damages

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

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