Case Summaries – Page 277 – Electronic Discovery Law

United States v. Hatfield, 2009 WL 3806300 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Addressing a number of attorney-client privilege and work product issues, the court considered whether documents stored on defendant?s company?s computer remained privileged and, noting the case-by-case nature of the assessment, considered five factors, including whether the company maintained a policy banning personal use, whether the company monitored employees? computer use or email, and how the company interpreted its own policy, and determined that defendant had not waived privilege as to documents stored on his own hard drive or that of a person with whom he maintained a joint defense agreement

Nature of Case: Criminal charges arising from alleged fraudulent schemes by CEO to defraud shareholders

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails stored on company computer

Patterson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2009 WL 1107740 (D. Kan. Apr. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court indicated reluctance to intervene in discovery dispute regarding contents of back up tapes where parties failed to properly confer regarding electronic discovery but, where defendants offered to search back up tapes for relevant emails from two custodians on three specific dates, court ordered the search and prescribed search terms to employ; where the estimated labor to conduct the limited search of the back up tapes would not be excessive or unduly burdensome, court ordered defendant to bear cost

Electronic Data Involved: Back up tapes

Medcorp, Inc. v. Pinpoint Tech., Inc., 2009 WL 2194036 (D. Colo. July 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Noting that a party seeking discovery from a non-party ?must satisfy a burden of proof heavier than the ordinary burden imposed by Rule 26 relating to discovery on any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action,? the special master quashed certain of plaintiff?s requests as overly broad and unduly burdensome including a request for forensic copies of a non-party?s employee work stations and server computers and a request for detailed information related to a the non-party?s technical environment, among others

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic copies

Gucci Am., Inc., v. Gucci, 2009 WL 440463 (S.D.N.Y Feb. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found that defendant violated temporary restraining order by failing to disclose certain relevant emails and other ESI discovered following forensic examination of defendant?s computer and rejected defendant?s assertions that the failure resulted from his lack of understanding of his discovery obligations, mistake of his counsel, and his own lack of computer savvy; Court ordered defendant to pay attorneys? fees and costs attributable to the additional discovery and motions practice undertaken as a result of non-disclosure

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Henderson v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 2009 WL 1152019 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 29, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Stating that Rule 34 does not give a party the right to conduct their own search of an opposing party?s electronic devices and holding that counterclaim plaintiff must request specific categories of information and allow counterclaim-defendants to conduct their own search for responsive data, court denied counterclaim-defendants? motion to compel production of all computers, hard drives, and other devices containing electronically stored information

Nature of Case: Enforceability of confdientiality and non-compete agreements, misappropriation of confidential inforamtion

Electronic Data Involved: Computers, hard drives, electronic storage devices

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Alaujan, 2009 WL 1292977 (D. Mass. May 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant admitted use of a particular computer to share copy written files but was unable to remember relevant details of the file sharing and put the question of the significance and scope of his infringement at issue, court granted plaintiffs? motion to copy and inspect defendant?s computer but ordered very strict protective order in light of defendant?s significant privacy concerns

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic records related to file-sharing software and metadata associated with music files, including deleted files

Brookhaven Typesetting Servs., Inc. v. Adobe Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 1515661 (9th Cir. June 1, 2009)(Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where, despite defendant?s destruction of source code and other discovery misbehavior the district court declined to impose an adverse inference sanction upon finding that ?there was no evidence to support a finding that [defendant] acted in bad faith and had intentionally destroyed the earlier versions of the source code,? 9th Circuit declined to disturb the trial court?s decision upon finding the trial court?s decision ?not clearly erroneous?

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Ashman v. Solectron Corp, 2009 WL 1684725 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2009) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where court ordered plaintiff to return documents retained improperly following termination of his employment but allowed him to utilize any such documents produced by defendant in the ?normal course of discovery? and where defendant argued that it need not produce the documents returned by plaintiff if it could not find the documents in its own system as such documents were outside the scope of ?normal? discovery, court ordered defendant to produce the non-privileged and relevant documents because they were within defendant?s ?legal possession, custody and control? and thus subject to disclosure

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Thompson v. State, 210 P.3d 1233 (Alaska Ct. App. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Appellate court held audio tapes were properly authenticated and admitted into evidence and that trial court did not abuse its discretion upon finding that ?the State presented ample evidence to support the conclusion that the two recordings accurately depicted the two conversations they purported to reproduce? including testimony from victim?s mother who actually taped the conversations and the State Trooper who provided the equipment and instructions; court declined to adopt nine part traditional test for authentication and noted the ?modern approach,? i.e., ?[whether[ the proponent [of the evidence has] presented sufficient evidence to support a rational finding [that] the tape recording is authentic?

Nature of Case: Second degree sexual abuse of a minor

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tapes

Smith v. Life Investors Ins. Co., 2009 WL 2045197 (W.D. Pa. July 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant performed electronic search ?without plaintiff?s input? and then refused to produce its search terms claiming attorney work product, court cited Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 251, 262 (D.Md.2008), for the proposition that ?the party performing the search had a duty to demonstrate that its methodology was reasonable? and, noting that ?a thorough explanation of the search terms and procedures used would be a large step in that direction,? granted plaintiff?s motion to compel; court granted Plaintiff?s Motion to Resolve a Disputed Claim of Privilege Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(B) finding the documents at issue were not subject to protection and need not be returned to defendant

Nature of Case: Class action involving “interpretation fo the term ‘actual damages’ in a supplemental cancer insurance policy”

Electronic Data Involved: Search terms

Catagory:Case Summaries