Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Corvello v. New England Gas Co., Inc., 243 F.R.D. 28 (D.R.I. 2007)
2
Polycom, Inc. v. Codian Ltd., 2007 WL 194588 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2007)
3
Claredi Corp. v. Seebeyond Tech. Corp., 2007 WL 735018 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 8, 2007)
4
United States ex rel. Miller v. Holzmann, 2007 WL 781941 (D.D.C. Mar. 12, 2007)
5
Palgut v. City Of Colo. Springs, 2007 WL 1238730 (D. Colo. Apr. 27, 2007)
6
Armamburu v. Healthcare Fin. Servs., Inc., 2007 WL 2020181 (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2007)
7
Bishop v. Toys ?R? US-NY, LLC, 2007 WL 2042913 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2007)
8
Clearone Communications, Inc. v. Chiang, 2007 WL 3275300 (D. Utah Nov. 5, 2007)
9
MGP Ingredients, Inc. v. Mars, Inc., 2007 WL 3010343 (D. Kan. Oct. 15, 2007)
10
Network Sys. Architects Corp. v. Dimitruk, 2007 WL 4442349 (Mass. Super. Ct. Dec. 6, 2007)

Corvello v. New England Gas Co., Inc., 243 F.R.D. 28 (D.R.I. 2007)

Key Insight: Court concluded that any privilege that may have attached to documents inadvertently produced on CD was waived, since non-party?s counsel failed to exercise due care when he produced CD without first reviewing it, failed to immediately accept party?s offer to temporarily halt its document review after he was alerted that some of the documents on CD appeared to be internal communications with counsel, and furnished an inadequate privilege log after two-week delay

Nature of Case: Litigation between gas company and landowners

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged documents inadvertently produced on CD

Polycom, Inc. v. Codian Ltd., 2007 WL 194588 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of defendants’ source code in native format to be maintained in confidence at Los Angeles office of plaintiffs’ counsel in light of security concerns and technical support issues raised by defendants, and since defendants had already produced an electronic version of the source code and plaintiffs’ consultants had been inspecting the code for several months at defense counsel’s Palo Alto office; court rejected plaintiff’s argument that current system intruded on plaintiff’s work product

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Claredi Corp. v. Seebeyond Tech. Corp., 2007 WL 735018 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 8, 2007)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff showed that defendant failed to produce hundreds of responsive emails which plaintiff ultimately obtained through third-party discovery, court found defendant’s discovery conduct to be dilatory and inadequate and imposed sanction of $54,000 for plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees, and another $20,000 payable to the court as sanction for unnecessarily prolonging and increasing the expense of the litigation

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other electronic documents

Armamburu v. Healthcare Fin. Servs., Inc., 2007 WL 2020181 (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendant asserted that certain data was ?dumped? from its computer system on an ?automatic and periodic basis,? but failed to provide a date or time period when such data was deleted or state whether a diligent effort was made to obtain such information in either electronic or paper format, court found that further discovery was necessary before it could determine whether spoliation sanctions were appropriate and ordered defendant to provide information on when alleged ?data dump? occurred, what information was deleted, and whether backup tapes and/or paper records exist that may provide requested information

Nature of Case: Putative class action

Electronic Data Involved: Information pertaining to the number of prospective class members, including their names and addresses

Bishop v. Toys ?R? US-NY, LLC, 2007 WL 2042913 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2007)

Key Insight: Overruling plaintiff’s objection that magistrate judge’s sanctions order did not go far enough and should have required defendant to retain a computer forensic expert to examine surveillance equipment to determine whether deleted images were recoverable, court found that order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law since defendant had produced affidavit of individual who personally installed and serviced the surveillance system who stated that he inspected the surveillance data system and determined that the images were not recoverable

Nature of Case: Customer asserted federal civil rights claims arising from his detention by store security guards

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

Clearone Communications, Inc. v. Chiang, 2007 WL 3275300 (D. Utah Nov. 5, 2007)

Key Insight: Where object of two prior orders granting plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and to compel immediate backup and imaging of certain defendants’ computers was preservation of evidence, court denied plaintiff’s later motion for order adopting 170-word search protocol that was separate and apart from any particular discovery request, since prior orders did not “contemplate that ClearOne have carte blanche access to the electronic data filtered only by keyword searching and privilege objections”

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, conversion

Electronic Data Involved: Mirror images of hard drives

MGP Ingredients, Inc. v. Mars, Inc., 2007 WL 3010343 (D. Kan. Oct. 15, 2007)

Key Insight: Where parties had no prior agreement about the manner in which documents and ESI were to be produced and plaintiff did not specify format in requests for production, court found that defendants had the right under Rule 34 to choose the option of producing their documents and ESI as kept in the usual course of business and declined to order defendants to identify by Bates Numbers the documents and ESI that were responsive to each particular request for production

Nature of Case: Patent infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, and breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Documents and ESI

Network Sys. Architects Corp. v. Dimitruk, 2007 WL 4442349 (Mass. Super. Ct. Dec. 6, 2007)

Key Insight: Where former employee admitted using file shredder program on his NSA-issued laptop before returning it, and evidence showed use of file shredder program on competitor-issued laptop computer, court found defendants? conduct was ?egregious? and amounted to spoliation but denied plaintiff?s request for entry of default judgment; court instead ordered production of computer hard drive for further examination, dismissed defendants? counterclaims, and ordered defendants to pay attorneys? fees and expenses incurred as a result of defendants? misconduct

Nature of Case: Seller of computer hardware and software sued former employee and competitor for misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computers

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