Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. L-3 Communications Corp., 2007 WL 3171299 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 25, 2007)
2
Muro v. Target Corp., 2007 WL 3254463 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2007)
3
Hunts Point Realty Corp. v. Pacifico, 2007 WL 2304859 (N.Y. Sup. July 24, 2007)
4
Whitney v. Wurtz, 2007 WL 521231 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2007)
5
Cyntegra, Inc. v. Idexx Labs., Inc., 2007 WL 5193736 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2007)
6
Pedroli v. Bartek, 2007 WL 1480967 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2007)
7
Cambrians for Thoughtful Dev., U.A. v. Didion Milling, Inc., 2007 WL 5618671 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 27, 2007)
8
Hendricks v. Smartvideo Techs., Inc., 2007 WL 220160 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2007)
9
Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., 2007 WL 908059 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2007)
10
Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2007 WL 1308388 (W.D. La. May 1, 2007)

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. L-3 Communications Corp., 2007 WL 3171299 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 25, 2007)

Key Insight: Where witness testified at his deposition that he did not recall receiving plaintiff?s litigation hold memorandum and had deleted unspecified email to ?clean up,? and plaintiff subsequently conducted forensic search of deponent?s computer hard drive, recovered available deleted emails and stated it would produce responsive email not previously produced, court found that defendant failed to establish two necessary elements of spoliation, since evidence was insufficient to show there were any ?missing? emails that would constitute “evidence,” or that any of the “missing evidence” was crucial to defendant’s claims or defenses

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Muro v. Target Corp., 2007 WL 3254463 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2007)

Key Insight: District court upheld magistrate judge?s ruling that Target’s ?litigation hold? notices were subject to attorney-client privilege and work product protection since notices were communications of legal advice from corporate counsel to corporate employees regarding document preservation; however, court sustained objection to magistrate’s ruling that privilege log was inadequate for failing to separately itemize each individual email quoted in an email string, concluding that Rule 26(b)(5)(A) does not require separate itemization of each individual email quoted in an email string

Nature of Case: Putative class action alleging violations of Truth in Lending Act

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation hold notices; privileged email

Hunts Point Realty Corp. v. Pacifico, 2007 WL 2304859 (N.Y. Sup. July 24, 2007)

Key Insight: Although court concluded that plaintiff had not adequately proven damages under any theory and thus damage award was zero, court found that defendant’s “unabashed flaunting of this Court’s preservation order” in failing to preserve emails resulted in additional work by plaintiffs’ counsel and the court, and as sanction, court awarded attorneys’ fees and costs for all work done by counsel related to defendant’s failure to preserve email

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Whitney v. Wurtz, 2007 WL 521231 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2007)

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiffs to provide a separate disk for each plaintiff’s responses to defendant?s request for production, and instructed (1) that ?electronic documents shall be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business or Plaintiffs shall organize and label the documents to correspond with Veriscape’s requests? and (2) that electronic documents be produced without the use of any compression software and in the format requested by defendant at the hearing

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, termination, and deceit

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents produced on computer disk

Cyntegra, Inc. v. Idexx Labs., Inc., 2007 WL 5193736 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2007)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff stored majority of its documents on third-party servers and failed to make payment to maintain the service, resulting in deletion of relevant documents, court declined to enter default judgment and monetary sanctions but instead would allow lesser sanction of adverse inference instruction, since (1) plaintiff had control, albeit indirectly, over destroyed information; (2) plaintiff was at least negligent in not taking any affirmative steps to preserve documents, and (3) evidence was relevant to defense

Nature of Case: Antitrust, tortious interference with contractual relations

Electronic Data Involved: Documents stored by plaintiff on third-party computer servers

Pedroli v. Bartek, 2007 WL 1480967 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2007)

Key Insight: Court granted defendants’ expedited motion to suspend requirement for Rule 26(f) conference in light of pending motions to dismiss and provision in Private Securities Litigation Reform Act that provides for automatic stay of discovery and other proceedings in all federal securities fraud actions while motions to dismiss are pending

Nature of Case: Securities litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Rule 26(f) conference

Cambrians for Thoughtful Dev., U.A. v. Didion Milling, Inc., 2007 WL 5618671 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 27, 2007)

Key Insight: Rejecting plaintiff?s claims that work product protection extended only to documents prepared in anticipation of the ongoing litigation, court denied motion to compel email strings between attorney and employees of defendant prepared in anticipation of government enforcement action, especially where enforcement action and ongoing litigation were closely related, as was the case here

Nature of Case: Violations of Clean Air Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Hendricks v. Smartvideo Techs., Inc., 2007 WL 220160 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied defense motion for dismissal based on plaintiff’s failure to preserve laptop’s hard drive, since there was no evidence that plaintiff’s conduct was intentional or in bad faith — plaintiff explained that hard drive was replaced after laptop crashed and before defendant’s discovery requests were received

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop hard drive

Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., 2007 WL 908059 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2007)

Key Insight: State appellate court found no error in trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion to compel production of certain hard drives of defendant for the purpose of allowing an expert to determine whether they contained relevant email, since discovery requests at issue made no mention of hard drives

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email, hard drives

Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2007 WL 1308388 (W.D. La. May 1, 2007)

Key Insight: District court upheld magistrate judge’s January 22, 2007 memorandum order and related protective order, as such orders were not clearly erroneous or contrary to law

Nature of Case: Design firm sued former vice president under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Former employee’s home computer and new work computer

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