Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Musarra v. Digital Dish, Inc., 2008 WL 4758699 (D. Ohio Oct. 30, 2008)
2
Moore v. Abbott Labs., 2008 WL 4981400 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 19, 2008)
3
Pure Power Boot Camp v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, 587 F. Supp. 2d 548 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)
4
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. M&M Petroleum Servs., Inc., 2008 WL 5423820 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2008)
5
Jones v. Jones, 995 So.2d 706 (Miss. 2008)
6
Overlap Inc. v. Alliance Bernstein Invs., Inc., 2008 WL 5780994 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 29, 2008)
7
Klayman v. Freedom’s Watch, Inc., 2008 WL 5111293 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2008)
8
Williams v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 2008 WL 192991 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 22, 2008)
9
Commerce Benefits Group, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 2008 WL 657838 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 6, 2008)
10
Binary Semantics Ltd. v. Minitab, Inc., 2008 WL 2020362 (M.D. Pa. May 5, 2008)

Musarra v. Digital Dish, Inc., 2008 WL 4758699 (D. Ohio Oct. 30, 2008)

Key Insight: Where non-party indicated inability to perform electronic search of subpoenaed communication logs and estimated more than 100 hours of manual searching to respond and where subpoenaed information exceeded relevant scope of claims, court declined to impose ?unreasonable burden? on non-party and denied motion to compel; where identification and production of subpoenaed email would result in ?massive expense? but where plaintiffs offered to limit their request to a sampling, court decline to rule pending non-party?s response

Nature of Case: Wage and hour employment case

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Moore v. Abbott Labs., 2008 WL 4981400 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 19, 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendant produced relevant emails from targeted custodians but where plaintiff sought all emails mentioning his name and where additional searching would cost $300,000, court declined to compel production of additional emails; where emails were produced in hard copy and relevant metadata could not be seen, court ordered defendants to ?determine feasibility? of electronic production and to produce in electronic form ?absent unusual circumstances?; court denied motion to compel generally where plaintiff?s requests were overbroad and unreasonable in their scope

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Pure Power Boot Camp v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, 587 F. Supp. 2d 548 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

Key Insight: Pursuant to its inherent equitable authority, where plaintiff accessed one defendant?s personal email accounts without authorization and attempted to use emails therein during litigation and where such activity would be a violation of The Stored Communications Act, court precluded plaintiffs? use of those emails for all but impeachment purposes; where plaintiffs initially produced wrongfully obtained emails with their print dates obscured but defendants later gained access to original form, court declined to impose spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duties, trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. M&M Petroleum Servs., Inc., 2008 WL 5423820 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendant offered plaintiff access to the relevant computer for analysis but where defendant had not yet provided access and had failed to confirm production of all responsive documents from all relevant computers pursuant to court order, court ordered defendant to make computer available within 15 days so that plaintiff?s expert might ?ascertain for itself whether all responsive documents have been produced or?whether any relevant information on the hard drive or drives have been destroyed, erased, or wiped? and to serve verified supplemental responses to discovery indicating ?a diligent search of every computer [at issue]?

Nature of Case: Complaint for declaratory relief pursuant to Petroleum Marketing Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

Jones v. Jones, 995 So.2d 706 (Miss. 2008)

Key Insight: Where party admitted to deliberate destruction of personal computer and was thus unable to produce it in response to discovery requests and where party also admitted to perjury, Supreme Court held chancellor abused his discretion in failing to impose sanctions pursuant to his obligation to ?consider sanctions that are severe enough to deter other from pursuing similar action? and remanded for reconsideration accordingly

Nature of Case: Divorce

Electronic Data Involved: Computer

Klayman v. Freedom’s Watch, Inc., 2008 WL 5111293 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2008)

Key Insight: Court denied defendants’ motion for taxation of e-discovery costs amounting to $150,000 where defendant retained an outside firm to handle collections but failed to show the costs were “reasonable costs” pursuant to U.S.C ? 1920(4); court noted that “[i]n a non-electronic document case this work would be performed by paralegals and associate attorneys and would not be compensable under 28 U.S.C. ? 1920.”

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Williams v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 2008 WL 192991 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 22, 2008)

Key Insight: Where privilege log entries failed to identify who sent or received documents, disclosed little or no information about actual contents of documents, used boilerplate objections which court had previously ruled were insufficient, and court had previously ordered Taser to provide more information in privilege logs, court concluded that Taser?s unjustified delay in providing a meaningful privilege log was inexcusable, in bad faith and deserving of sanctions; Taser?s assertions of attorney client privilege and work product doctrine were deemed waived and court ordered Taser to produce all documents identified in privilege logs

Nature of Case: Wrongful death

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email and other documents

Commerce Benefits Group, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 2008 WL 657838 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 6, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff did not demonstrate that focus of the defendants’ search was not reasonably directed toward finding responsive documents, and failed to establish that relevance and necessity of any further discovery into email backup tapes outweighed burden and expense that would ensue, not to mention further delay which would certainly follow, court denied motion to compel

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI stored on backup tapes

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