Case Summaries – Page 331 – Electronic Discovery Law

Gupta v. Walt Disney World Co., 2007 WL 4165934 (11th Cir. Nov. 27, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: District court did not abuse its discretion when it denied, without holding an evidentiary hearing, plaintiff?s motion to compel discovery about work schedules that plaintiff alleged were forged, where plaintiff provided no support for his allegation that Walt Disney removed his name from the work schedules produced and Walt Disney presented evidence that records produced were copies of electronically maintained records, kept in the usual course of business, and were printed off the computer in the form in which they were maintained

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Work schedules

3M Co. v. Kanbar, 2007 WL 2972921 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where responsive emails which had been inadvertently omitted from initial production as a result of human error in manual search were promptly produced after being mentioned in deposition, court ordered defendant to submit a declaration certifying that all non-privileged documents had been produced and detailing what defendants and their employees did to ensure a complete production

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Agassi Enters., Inc. v. Target Corp., 2007 WL 4441195 (D. Nev. Dec. 11, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Granting preliminary injunction, court further ordered defendant to “preserve all documents and other evidence (including, but not limited to, electronic documents such as email relating to its use of the AGASSI name . . .” and, within 30 days of the order, to file and serve a report detailing the manner and form in which Target complied with the preliminary injunction

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents, email

Stroupe v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., 2007 WL 3223224 (E.D. Va. Oct. 29, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Adverse inference instruction not warranted for defendant’s routine destruction of surveillance videotapes created on date of incident; defendant presented evidence that there was no videotape that depicted the subject area where the incident occurred and plaintiff did not show that destroyed videotapes contained any images or information relevant to any issue at trial

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance videotapes

Glass v. Beer, 2007 WL 1456059 (E.D. Cal. May 17, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendants submitted evidence under penalty of perjury explaining reasons why they were able to locate only two of the four requested videotapes despite three searches, and defendant submitted no evidence that defendants had tampered with evidence, that the tape was intentionally destroyed, or that defendants were lying, court denied motion to compel and for sanctions

Nature of Case: State prisoner asserted civil rights claims claiming use of excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Videotapes

Ameriwood ind., Inc. v. Liberman, 2007 WL 5110313 (E.D. Mo. July 3, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendants used “Window Washer” disk scrubbing software on hard drives just days before they were to be turned over to forensic expert, and also performed “mass deletions” of electronic files, court found that defendants’ intentional actions evidenced a serious disregard for the judicial process and had prejudiced plaintiff; court entered default judgment in favor of plaintiff and shifted to defendants plaintiff’s costs, attorney’s fees, and computer expert’s fees relating to motions for sanctions and forensic imaging and recovery of defendants’ hard drives; jury trial to proceed solely on issue of plaintiff’s damages

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

Wiley v. Paulson, 2007 WL 7059722 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel metadata associated with hard copy emails where government established the metadata was not reasonably accessible because of substantial and prohibitive burden and cost; court denied motion without prejudice leaving room for plaintiff to re-file her motion and establish a factual bases for her demand and noted that if such a motion were granted in future, plaintiff would bear the cost

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata associated with hard copy emails

Memry Corp. v. Ky. Oil Tech., N.V., 2007 WL 832937 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2007) (not for citation)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied motion for access to defendant’s computer hard drives because computer content was not inextricably related to the basis of the lawsuit, defendant had represented that it conducted reasonable search of its computer hard drives for responsive information and moving party could point to only two missing emails out of thousands that were produced, and fact discovery had closed

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives

Reino de Espana v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, 2007 WL 210018 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied Spain’s motion to reconsider November 3, 2006 Opinion and Order rejecting the various reasons offered as support

Nature of Case: Litigation brought by the government of Spain arising from shipping casualty and oil spill

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Lohmann & Rauscher, Inc. v. YKK (U.S.A.), Inc., 2007 WL 677726 (D. Kan. Mar. 2, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied discovery motion because counsel’s exchange of emails did not satisfy Rule 37 meet and confer requirement; notwithstanding such denial, court found that defense counsel’s email attaching additional documents and advising that there were no other responsive documents did not satisfy the letter or spirit of court’s prior discovery order or the federal rules; court ordered defendant to prepare written response in accordance with Rule 34(b) and pay sanctions of $500 to plaintiff

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Catagory:Case Summaries