Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Ajaxo Inc. v. Bank of Am. Tech. and Operations, Inc., 2008 WL 5101451 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2008)
2
Fox v. Riverdeep, Inc., 2008 WL 5244297 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 16, 2008)
3
Thermodyne Corp. v. 3M Co., 593 F. Supp. 2d 972 (N.D. Ohio 2008)
4
Integrated Serv. Solutions, Inc. v. Rodman, 2008 WL 4791654 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2008)
5
Church v. Wachovia Sec., Inc., 2008 WL 281091 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 30, 2008)
6
In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to AOL, LLC, 550 F. Supp. 2d 606 (E.D. Va. 2008)
7
Yeisley v. PA State Police, 2008 WL 906465 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2008)
8
Peterson v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2008 WL 1930453 (C.D. Ill. May 1, 2008)
9
Goshawk Dedicated Ltd. v. Am. Viatical Servs., LLC, 2008 WL 2901864 (N.D. Ga. July 23, 2008)
10
Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc., 2008 WL 3200822 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2008)

Ajaxo Inc. v. Bank of Am. Tech. and Operations, Inc., 2008 WL 5101451 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to produce requested expert information in searchable format, pursuant to court order, until after defendants filed a motion for sanctions, but where plaintiffs failures were not willful and where prejudice to defendants was minimal, court ordered plaintiff to bear costs of defendants? motion to compel but declined to strike plaintiffs? expert or impose other severe sanctions

Nature of Case: Patent lawsuit

Electronic Data Involved: Expert’s report in searchable format

Fox v. Riverdeep, Inc., 2008 WL 5244297 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 16, 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendant breached its duty to preserve evidence by taking ?no steps whatsoever to preserve emails or documents? following receipt of a cease and desist letter, court ordered adverse inference instruction that missing documents were unfavorable to defendants but declined to impose requested sanction of default judgment absent a showing of bad faith

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Thermodyne Corp. v. 3M Co., 593 F. Supp. 2d 972 (N.D. Ohio 2008)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion in limine for adverse inference for alleged spoliation, despite evidence that files were deleted, where plaintiff offered only conjecture regarding the relevance of the allegedly spoliated documents, where defendant had the means to recover the allegedly spoliated contents of the files and did not, and where defendant failed to show plaintiff acted deliberately with the intent to deprive plaintiffs of the data

Nature of Case: Theft of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Integrated Serv. Solutions, Inc. v. Rodman, 2008 WL 4791654 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2008)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of search ?hits? from non-party?s laptop where agreed upon neutral third party conducted search, where counsel reviewed hits and concluded none were relevant, and where plaintiff provided no showing of bad faith or indicia of unreliability; court offered plaintiff option to request report indicating methods utilized in search, broad description of documents hit, and confirmation of no evidence of wiping

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer files

Church v. Wachovia Sec., Inc., 2008 WL 281091 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 30, 2008)

Key Insight: Court ordered parties to file joint status report describing results of targeted search of defendant’s data backup system with respect to particular witness and stating their respective positions on issue of whether such results warranted further search of data backup system for emails authored by or addressed to other individuals

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, violation of North Carolina Wage and Hour Act

Electronic Data Involved: All emails relating to plaintiff or his compensation generated in past ten years by plaintiff and other Wachovia employees

In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to AOL, LLC, 550 F. Supp. 2d 606 (E.D. Va. 2008)

Key Insight: District court upheld magistrate judge’s order quashing State Farm’s subpoena to AOL because: (1) plain language of Electronic Communications Privacy Act prohibited AOL from producing requested email because a civil discovery subpoena was not a disclosure exception under Act; (2) State Farm’s subpoena imposed undue burden because subpoena was overbroad; and (3) court where action was pending was better posed to decide privilege issues

Nature of Case: Former insurance adjusters alleged that State Farm committed fraud in connection with handling of Hurricane Katrina damage claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on AOL’s servers

Yeisley v. PA State Police, 2008 WL 906465 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2008)

Key Insight: Denying plaintiff?s motion for sanctions based on non-production of email, court ordered defendants to promptly undertake requisite search of electronic records and warned: ?To the extent that electronic records may have been lost during the pendency of this litigation as a result of the failure to conduct an adequate search of this font of information prior to this time, sanctions may be appropriate.?

Nature of Case: Civil rights litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Peterson v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2008 WL 1930453 (C.D. Ill. May 1, 2008)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs’ request for sanctions, additional depositions and for an order compelling production of electronic data and signal plans in light of plaintiffs’ failure to diligently pursue such requests and failure to establish need for additional discovery at late stage of litigation; court granted plaintiffs opportunity to show that motion was substantially justified and deferred consideration of defendant’s request for expenses incurred in opposing motion

Nature of Case: Claims arising from collision between freight train and automobile

Electronic Data Involved: Data from event recorders and other components and equipment of the crossing signal system

Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc., 2008 WL 3200822 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2008)

Key Insight: District court overruled defendants’ objections to magistrate judge’s order compelling production of certain ESI, rejecting claim that requested discovery was unduly burdensome; although defendants claimed they had more than 1500 servers, court noted that discovery was limited to 67 specific web sites and defendants had offered no evidence to suggest that they could not narrow the number of servers on which responsive content might exist; court ordered parties to meet and confer to agree upon protocol for obtaining the requested discovery

Nature of Case: Contributory and vicarious trademark and copyright infringement claims against internet service providers who host third-party websites on their servers

Electronic Data Involved: Publicly-posted Internet content evidencing offers made of counterfeit Louis Vuitton merchandise and traffic logs evidencing the volume of underlying counterfeit activity, limited to 67 allegedly infringing websites identified by plaintiff

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