Catagory:Case Summaries

1
In re Fischer Advanced Composite Components AG, 2008 WL 5210839 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 11, 2008)
2
Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Fresenius Med. Care Holding, Inc., 2008 WL 5214283 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2008)
3
Williams v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 2008 WL 192991 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 22, 2008)
4
Commerce Benefits Group, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 2008 WL 657838 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 6, 2008)
5
Howard v. Rustin, 2008 WL 2008937 (W.D. Pa. May 2, 2008)
6
Beem v. County of Madison, 2008 WL 2561110 (S.D. Ill. June 25, 2008)
7
Nucor Corp. v. Bell, 251 F.R.D. 191 (D.S.C. 2008)
8
Buckley v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 306 (4th Cir. 2008)
9
Cartwright v. Viking Indus., Inc., 2008 WL 4283614 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2008)
10
Air-Ride, Inc. v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 2008 WL 4766832 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2008)

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

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)

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

Howard v. Rustin, 2008 WL 2008937 (W.D. Pa. May 2, 2008)

Key Insight: Court sustained objection to request seeking “[a]ny and all electronically stored information, documents, reports, logs and/or memorandums contained in any and all of the electronic databases and/or computer systems of Allegheny County Jail, Allegheny Correctional Health Services, Inc., Bruce Dixon, and Dana Phillips” as overbroad, unreasonably cumulative, and unduly burdensome, since the request imposed no limits (time or otherwise) on ESI requested; court allowed plaintiffs to revise request to include reasonable limitations and serve it by certain date

Nature of Case: Wrongful death

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified ESI

Beem v. County of Madison, 2008 WL 2561110 (S.D. Ill. June 25, 2008)

Key Insight: Noting that case involved the operation of a government office, and images were contained within a government computer where there could be no expectation of privacy (particularly not when it is alleged that images were already seen by plaintiff and others), and pornographic images were clearly relevant if not ?res gestae,? court overruled County?s objections and ordered County to (1) provide plaintiff with copies of all of pornographic images from criminal investigation that were in its custody and control; and (2) allow plaintiff’s counsel and a computer forensics specialist access to the hard drive of supervisor?s work computer, so that all responsive images could be copied in electronic format for plaintiff’s counsel

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleged she was required to work in a sexually hostile environment, and specifically that she was exposed to extreme, graphic and debasing computer/internet pornography contained in her supervisor’s office computer

Electronic Data Involved: Pornographic images stored on supervisor’s office computer

Nucor Corp. v. Bell, 251 F.R.D. 191 (D.S.C. 2008)

Key Insight: Adverse inference instruction appropriate for two forms of spoliation: (1) individual defendant?s intentional disposal of USB Thumb-Drive containing plaintiff’s proprietary information to prevent plaintiff from “making an issue” of it, and (2) alteration or loss of data through defendants’ mere continued use of laptop and through installation and un-installation of various programs; default judgment not warranted since plaintiff had considerable evidence available to support its argument that defendants misappropriated its confidential information

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and computer fraud and abuse

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop hard drive, USB Thumb-Drive

Buckley v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 306 (4th Cir. 2008)

Key Insight: Remanding case for new trial on other grounds, appellate court noted that trial court may have committed an error of law, in analyzing plaintiff?s request for adverse inference instruction as sanction for government?s failure to preserve email, by equating the intentional conduct necessary for such an instruction with bad faith; appellate court would leave it to trial court to consider request for adverse inference instruction on remand, but observed that (even absent a court order) the duty to preserve material evidence arises not only during litigation but also extends to that period before litigation when party reasonably should know that evidence may be relevant to anticipated litigation

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination and retaliation

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Cartwright v. Viking Indus., Inc., 2008 WL 4283614 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2008)

Key Insight: Where parties agreed to production of database materials but failed to reach mutual understanding regarding need for privilege log, court held that failure to produce log due to misunderstanding did not waive privilege; court rejected argument that providing log would be unduly burdensome and expensive and ordered production of privilege log within two weeks

Nature of Case: Class action product liability litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Air-Ride, Inc. v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 2008 WL 4766832 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2008)

Key Insight: Appellate court upheld waiver of privilege despite inadvertent production where defendant previously testified as to the subject of the email in affidavit, where the email was marked ?confidential,? indicating it had been reviewed by an attorney prior to production, where defendant learned of the disclosure from plaintiff and waited 2 weeks to seek judicial intervention, where the entirety of the email was produced rather than a part, and where its contents were ?at the heart of the matter? such that fairness mandated a finding of waiver

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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