Case Summaries – Page 283 – Electronic Discovery Law

Chevron USA, Inc. v. M & M Petroleum Servs., Inc., 2009 WL 2431926 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where court found defendant had perjured himself, including making untrue statements about the existence of relevant evidence, had willfully disobeyed the court?s order to produce ?substantial documents,? and had knowingly and intentionally either destroyed or ordered destroyed relevant electronically stored information, court ordered adverse inference and monetary sanctions

Nature of Case: Lawsuit arising from defendant’s breach of contract and defendant’s undereporting of revenue and underpayment of taxes

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard copy

Scalera v. Electrograph Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 3126637 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court declined to award sanctions, despite finding that defendant violated its duty to preserve and negligently destroyed potentially relevant ESI, where plaintiff produced nothing except speculation in support of her claim that the destroyed emails would have benefited her position.

Nature of Case: Failure to accomodate

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Tango Transp., LLC v. Transp. Int. Pool, Inc., 2009 WL 3254882 (W.D. La. Oct. 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant established plaintiff?s breach of its duty to preserve emails by failing to timely issue litigation hold notices to all ?key players? but failed to establish defendants? bad faith or the relevance of the lost messages, court declined to impose adverse inference sanctions but ordered monetary sanctions, including defendant?s attorneys fees associated with the motion

Nature of Case: Contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, other ESI

Assoc. Press v. Canterbury, 688 S.E.2d 317 (W. Va. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding that ?a personal email communication made by a public official or public employee, which does not related to the conduct of the public?s business, is not a public record subject to disclosure under FOIA,? West Virginia?s Supreme Court of Appeals reversed in part a lower court ruling compelling the production of five personal emails pursuant to West Virginia?s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

Nature of Case: Freedom of Information Request (FOIA)

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Comrie v. Ipsco, 2009 WL 4403364 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 30, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants claimed a privileged email was inadvertently produced and thus protected from waiver but failed to support their assertion with facts, court ruled defendants failed to meet their burden of proving that the disclosure was inadvertent or that they took reasonable steps to prevent such disclosure and that privilege was therefore waived; court also found that the email fell within the fiduciary exception to privilege

Nature of Case: Claims brought pursuant to Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

David v. Signal Int. LLC, 2009 WL 5215326 (E.D. La. Dec. 28, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where pro se defendant failed to assert the attorney client privilege when such information was sought and ?selectively disclosed? such information despite warnings from his former counsel, court found defendant had waived the attorney-client privilege as to communications with counsel; addressing defendant?s argument that his disclosures were ?mistakes? (and thus inadvertently produced) court noted defendant?s failure to seek the return of the confidential communications, his lack of effort to ?rectify or withdraw? any of his deposition disclosures, and that the disclosures occurred following warning from counsel and therefore found that ?any argument?that he inadvertently disclosed confidential communications?lacks merit.?

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged communications

In re Kessler, 2009 WL 2603104 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: In a case arising from the fire of a boat while in the marina the district court rejected the magistrate?s recommendation in favor of spoliation sanctions for the marina?s failure to preserve surveillance video because the court found that the owner of the boat did not meet the burden of establishing the marina?s culpable destruction of relevant tape in violation of a duty to preserve where the footage ?self destructed approximately twenty-seven hours after it was recorded? when it was automatically recorded over in the regular course of the system?s activities; marina was ordered to bear the cost of conducting forensic examination of its hard drive to determine if fire footage could be retrieved

Nature of Case: Claims resulting from a vessel destroyed by fire while in the marina

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance

Whatman, Inc. v. Davin, 2009 WL 3698390 (D.S.C. Nov. 3, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted Motion to Quash where the court determined that the subpoena was unduly burdensome on the non-party and that ?the discovery sought can be obtained from more reasonable discovery methods, namely pursuit of full responses by the defendants to interrogatories and requests for production along with additional or supplemental examination of the defendants? electronically stored documents?

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, etc.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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

Catagory:Case Summaries