Catagory:Case Summaries

1
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Doe, 2008 WL 2949427 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2008)
2
In re Carco Elecs., 536 F.3d 211 (3rd Cir. 2008)
3
Koosharem Corp. v. Spec Personnel, LLC, 2008 WL 4458864 (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 2008)
4
Psychopathic Records, Inc. v. Anderson, 2008 WL 4852915 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 7, 2008)
5
Ford Motor Co. v. Hall-Edwards, 997 So.2d 1148 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)
6
Rhoads Indus., Inc. v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am., 254 F.R.D. 238 (E.D. Pa. 2008)
7
New Albertsons Inc. v. Superior Court, 86 Cal. Rptr. 3d 457 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)
8
Washington v. State, 961 A.2d 1110 (Md. 2008)
9
Meccatech, Inc. v. Kiser, 2008 WL 6010937 (D. Neb. Apr. 2, 2008)
10
Sharp v. City of Palatka, 2008 WL 89762 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2008)

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Doe, 2008 WL 2949427 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs made prima facie showing of infringement, there was no other way to identify Doe defendant, and there was risk that ISP would destroy its logs prior to Rule 26(f) conference, court found that need for expedited discovery outweighed prejudice to defendant and granted plaintiffs? motion for leave to take immediate discovery

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement through use of peer-to-peer (“P2P”) networking

Electronic Data Involved: ISP logs; documents and ESI sufficient to identify defendant’s true name, current and permanent addresses and telephone numbers, email addresses, and Media Access Control addresses

In re Carco Elecs., 536 F.3d 211 (3rd Cir. 2008)

Key Insight: Where party was dissatisfied with scope and degree of protection afforded by trial court?s protective order relating to production of source code, and appealed, Third Circuit found that the discovery order was neither final nor appealable and dismissed appeal

Nature of Case: Bankruptcy

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Psychopathic Records, Inc. v. Anderson, 2008 WL 4852915 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 7, 2008)

Key Insight: Good cause existed to grant (in part) plaintiffs? motion for expedited discovery upon third party internet service providers prior to Rule 26(f) conference where plaintiff established direct connection between a particular email address and defendant, where email address was connected to the sale of allegedly infringing goods, and where ?very real danger? existed that ISPs would not preserve the information; court denied motion as to two email addresses where no showing of a connection to defendant or alleged infringement was made

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Ford Motor Co. v. Hall-Edwards, 997 So.2d 1148 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

Key Insight: Where trial court granted plaintiff access to all defendant?s databases, including an exclusively privileged database, based upon an unproven assumption regarding ease of production and upon defendant?s violation of a prior court order by failing to provide sufficient information regarding its search efforts, appellate court quashed order noting that defendant?s violations were correctable and non-prejudicial and thus could not justify invasion of the attorney-client privilege or work product

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Rhoads Indus., Inc. v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am., 254 F.R.D. 238 (E.D. Pa. 2008)

Key Insight: Court clarified prior sanctions order and held that where top email in string was not properly and timely logged, it must be produced, however, properly and timely logged underlying messages in string were protected but only to extent that they were ?identical replicas of the version of the message that was logged?; where top message was properly logged, privilege extended to properly logged underlying messages in string but any messages not properly logged were ordered produced

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

New Albertsons Inc. v. Superior Court, 86 Cal. Rptr. 3d 457 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)

Key Insight: Court issued writ of mandate vacating award of sanctions against defendant for spoliation of video and photographic evidence where trial court had no statutory or inherent authority to order sanctions absent defendant?s violation of a court order or sufficiently egregious or exceptional circumstances and, where by failing to timely move to compel further response upon Albertson?s alleged deficient production, plaintiffs waived their rights to do so

Nature of Case: Negligence and premises liability

Electronic Data Involved: Video and photographic evidence

Washington v. State, 961 A.2d 1110 (Md. 2008)

Key Insight: Court of Appeals reversed Special Court of Appeals and remanded case for new trial based on State?s failure to properly authenticate surveillance video where State entered video into evidence but provided no testimony as to ?the process used, the manner of the operation of the cameras, the reliability of authenticity of its images, or the chain of custody of the pictures?

Nature of Case: First degree assault and related offenses

Electronic Data Involved: Video Surveillance

Meccatech, Inc. v. Kiser, 2008 WL 6010937 (D. Neb. Apr. 2, 2008)

Key Insight: Where the court found that defendants had ?intentionally destroyed or withheld? ESI, including by deleting relevant evidence or attempting to discard a relevant hard drive (which was instead saved by the technician defendant told to discard it), and where the destruction resulted in prejudice to the plaintiff, the court ordered default judgment against defendant and other evidentiary sanctions

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Sharp v. City of Palatka, 2008 WL 89762 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2008)

Key Insight: No adverse inference warranted for alleged spoliation of audio recordings, since plaintiff failed to establish first element that recordings ever existed; however, plaintiff would be free to elicit testimony concerning the alleged recordings at trial

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings of two conversations

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