Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Interface Sec. Sys., L.L.C. v. May, 2007 WL 1300394 (E.D. Mo. May 2, 2007)
2
Gibson v. Ford Motor Co., 2007 WL 2119008 (N.D. Ga. July 19, 2007)
3
KnifeSource, LLC v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 2007 WL 2326892 (D.S.C. Aug. 10, 2007)
4
John B. v. Goetz, 2007 WL 4014015 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 15, 2007)
5
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. L-3 Communications Corp., 2007 WL 3171299 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 25, 2007)
6
Muro v. Target Corp., 2007 WL 3254463 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2007)
7
Azimi v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 2007 WL 2010937 (D. Kan. July 9, 2007)
8
Potter v. Havlicek, 2007 WL 539534 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 14, 2007)
9
Tenet Healthsystem Desert, Inc. v. Fortis Ins. Co., Inc., 520 F. Supp. 2d 1184 C.D. Cal. 2007)
10
Cyntegra, Inc. v. Idexx Labs., Inc., 2007 WL 5193736 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2007)

Interface Sec. Sys., L.L.C. v. May, 2007 WL 1300394 (E.D. Mo. May 2, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied motion for expedited discovery but granted motion for preservation order since defendant did not raise any issues regarding the appropriateness of preservation of evidence and court agreed that “all documents, software and things” relating to the matter should be preserved

Nature of Case: Unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Documents, software and things

Gibson v. Ford Motor Co., 2007 WL 2119008 (N.D. Ga. July 19, 2007)

Key Insight: Denying Ford’s request for clarification of January 4, 2007 Order, court nonetheless confirmed that plaintiffs may ask deponent about what materials are available for production, and if materials are not available, why they are not available; “Plaintiffs are not, however, permitted to use the deposition as a surrogate for production of the suspension document, and may not ask questions pertaining to the specific contents or rationale behind the suspension order.”

Nature of Case: Personal injury product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Legal hold notice

KnifeSource, LLC v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 2007 WL 2326892 (D.S.C. Aug. 10, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendant stated it did not maintain physical copies of statements and that compliance with production request would impermissibly require it to create documents, court found that defendant had not shown requested information was “not reasonably accessible” and ordered production to the extent defendant maintained any of the requested information electronically

Nature of Case: Conversion

Electronic Data Involved: Customer account statements

John B. v. Goetz, 2007 WL 4014015 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 15, 2007)

Key Insight: Ruling on defense motions for clarification, court directed that plaintiffs? expert and court-appointed monitor shall ?forthwith inspect the State?s computer systems and computers of the fifty (50) key custodians that contain information relevant to this action,? that plaintiffs? expert or his designee ?shall make forensic copies of any computer inspected to ensure the preservation of all existing electronically stored information (?ESI?)?; court further ordered that United States Marshall should accompany the plaintiffs? expert to ?ensure that this Order is fully executed.?

Nature of Case: Class action on behalf of 550,000 children seeking to enforce their rights under federal law to various medical services

Electronic Data Involved: Computer systems of defendant Tennessee state agencies

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

Azimi v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 2007 WL 2010937 (D. Kan. July 9, 2007)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff needed requested information to compare his circumstances of disciplinary action and termination with others who held his position, and defendant’s undue burden objection rested on unsupported claim that it would take over 100 hours to retrieve information from various company databases, court overruled objection finding that defendant had not demonstrated undue burden: “At best, it has perhaps shown that compliance would be inconvenient and involve some expense.”

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination, wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Computerized accident and driving histories of other employees

Potter v. Havlicek, 2007 WL 539534 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 14, 2007)

Key Insight: Although court denied motion for preliminary injunction forbidding defendant from using, disclosing or destroying emails and other ESI described by defendant as evidence he would present if tangentially related divorce case went to trial, court ordered defendant to produce subject emails and other ESI within 10 days

Nature of Case: Alleged violations of Electronic Communications Privacy Act and Stored Communications Act, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress

Electronic Data Involved: Emails and other ESI described by defendant in affidavit in tangentially related divorce case

Tenet Healthsystem Desert, Inc. v. Fortis Ins. Co., Inc., 520 F. Supp. 2d 1184 C.D. Cal. 2007)

Key Insight: Granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment, court drew adverse inference from plaintiff’s loss of records, “i.e., that the records from Mr. Wyatt’s May, 2002 hospital visit are unfavorable to Plaintiff and, therefore, suggest Mr. Wyatt had a pre-existing condition during the October and December, 2002 medical treatment,” as an appropriate sanction due to the prejudice their loss caused defendant in the litigation

Nature of Case: Medical provider sued insurer for failure to pay for services provided to insured

Electronic Data Involved: Medical records relating to insured’s earlier emergency room visit

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

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