Case Summaries – Page 303 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re Fischer Advanced Composite Components AG, 2008 WL 5210839 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 11, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Citing its discretion pursuant to U.S.C. ? 1782, court declined to compel production of requested communications from parent corporation for use in foreign jurisdiction where court found the information sought was in the possession of a party to the action in the foreign jurisdiction and that to compel production of such information would be ?burdensome and duplicative?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and tortious intimidation (proceedings initiated in foreign jurisdiction)

Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Fresenius Med. Care Holding, Inc., 2008 WL 5214283 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant offered to produce a witness to authenticate a ?manageable number of documents? that plaintiffs would ?actually use at trial?, court denied plaintiffs? motion to compel production of a witness knowledgeable enough to authenticate thousands of documents and more than 580 CD-Rom discs of electronic files and source code and concluded that plaintiffs? motion was ?unreasonable and not supported by either the rules or the law?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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

Binary Semantics Ltd. v. Minitab, Inc., 2008 WL 2020362 (M.D. Pa. May 5, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied as overly-broad and intrusive defendant’s request that its forensic expert be permitted to make complete forensic copy of plaintiff’s File Server and FTP server; court instead would allow forensic expert to make forensic copy of relevant folders on plaintiff’s FTP server

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata

John B. v. Goetz, 531 F.3d 448 (6th Cir. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Applying a five-factor balancing test and in light of significant confidentiality and federalism concerns present in the case, Sixth Circuit concluded that certain aspects of district court’s orders constituted a ?demonstrable abuse of discretion,? and granted, in part, defendants? petition for mandamus and set aside those provisions of the district court’s orders that required forensic imaging of state-owned and privately owned computers, including the provisions that required U.S. Marshal or his designee to assist plaintiffs’ computer expert in execution of orders

Nature of Case: Class action on behalf of roughly 550,000 children seeking to enforce their rights under federal law to various medical services

Electronic Data Involved: State-owned and privately owned computers

Sampson v. City of Cambridge, 251 F.R.D. 172 (D. Md. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant’s failure to preserve emails was merely negligent and plaintiff did not establish that lost evidence would have supported her claims, court denied plaintiff?s motion for default judgment or adverse inference instruction as spoliation sanction; however, since second forensic examination of hard drive was necessitated solely by defendant’s misstatement, court ordered defendant to cover its cost

Nature of Case: Race discrimination and discrimination under ADA

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drive

Schoenbaum v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, 2008 WL 877962 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 27, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court issued order relieving law firm of its duties as Co-Interim Class Counsel for plaintiffs, set scheduling conference and ordered parties’ attorneys to meet to discuss various issues in advance of conference, including joint proposed scheduling plan, preservation of evidence and any issues relating to disclosure or discovery of ESI

Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI generally

In re Riverside Healthcare, Inc., 393 B.R. 422 (Bankr. M.D. La. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where supplier?s computer system routinely deleted email after 60-90 days in the regular course of business absent a request to preserve, and emails could not be recovered from particular individual?s work station because hard drive repeatedly failed and had been replaced three times, and where liquidating supervisor could not show that deletion of email was intentional, prejudicial, or violated any duty to preserve, court found that record did not support a finding of spoliation and denied liquidating supervisor?s request for adverse inference

Nature of Case: Adverse proceeding in bankruptcy brought by liquidating supervisor against supplier/creditor of debtor

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Armor Screen Corp. v. Storm Catcher, Inc., 2008 WL 4753358 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant produced electronic files in ?MAX format? with free ?Paperport? software to assist in its review but where plaintiff then expressed preference for hard copy documents and belief that electronic documents would cost triple the amount to review, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel holding that defendants? production of files as kept in the usual course of business was sufficient; court also ruled that where plaintiff?s first request for documents did not specify production in electronic form, defendants need not reproduce hard copy documents electronically

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Catagory:Case Summaries