Catagory:Case Summaries

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Self v. Equilon Enters., LLC, 2007 WL 427964 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 2, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: In order issued after parties’ status hearing on production of electronic documents, court recounted history of discovery conferences and orders addressing defendants’ production, including court’s prior order directing defendants to produce all emails tagged by the search term “transfer price” whether deemed relevant or not after completing a privilege review, and concluded that, since plaintiffs had not shown that need for further electronic discovery outweighed burdens and costs of retrieving and producing such information, and had not shown that defendants were withholding or ?cherry picking? relevant emails, plaintiffs would bear the costs of all additional email searches, if any

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Tilton v. McGraw-Hilton Cos., Inc., 2007 WL 777523 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 9, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where plaintiff withheld and destroyed relevant documents and committed other egregious discovery abuse, but other factors weighed against dismissal, court concluded that less extreme sanctions were appropriate and precluded plaintiff from presenting certain arguments at trial and from seeking damages related to the termination of his employment

Nature of Case: Plaintiff sued publisher alleging breach of a promise to keep his name and employer confidential

Electronic Data Involved: Email

E.E.O.C. v. Boeing Co., 2007 WL 1146446 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where court had previously denied plaintiff’s motion to compel on the grounds that defendant had made the showing, pursuant to Rule 26(b)(2)(C), that email sought was “not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or costs,” and because plaintiff had not shown good cause to justify the expense of the proposed discovery, court denied subsequent motion to compel defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee to provide testimony on how email production cost estimate was determined

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Wachtel v. Guardian Life Ins., 2007 WL 1752036 (D.N.J. June 18, 2007) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court found that plaintiff made a prima facie showing that crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege may apply with respect to the documents identified in Health Net’s privilege log, citing numerous instances of discovery misconduct including Health Net’s failure to disclose to the court during three years of discovery that emails older than 90 days were never searched when proper discovery requests sought historic information from a period more than 90 days earlier

Nature of Case: Class action relating to administration of health care plans

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Fortis Corporate Ins., SA v. Viken Ship Mgmt. AS, 2007 WL 3287357 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 5, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions, finding no basis in the record for concluding that defendant’s failure to preserve email and other materials was so blameworthy that defendant should be deprived, either in whole or part, of the opportunity to defend the case on the merits, and adding: “Perhaps in the fullness of time foreign-based companies doing business in the United States will be held to the same ‘litigation holds’ and other devices now routinely applied by litigants here to make sure pertinent documents and other materials are retained and produced. And perhaps they should be held to the same standards in an era of ever-expanding global trade. Increasingly negligence on the other side of the globe can cause injury locally.”

Nature of Case: Subrogation action against foreign-based shipowner

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Manning v. Gen. Motors, 2007 WL 4246047 (D. Kan. Dec. 4, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Although court found it ?difficult to imagine? that defendant did not possess any responsive electronic or paper documents, plaintiff submitted no information upon which to question defendant?s representation and court had no basis to compel production; court instead required defendant to supplement discovery responses unconditionally representing that no responsive documents were in its possession, custody or control

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic records identifying vacant positions at GM plant

APC Filtration, Inc. v. Becker, 2007 WL 4569721 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court approved plaintiff’s fee petition and awarded $79,606 in attorneys’ fees and $19,856 in expenses, for a total of $99,462, as sanction for defendant’s intentional destruction of laptop computer

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of employment contract

Electronic Data Involved: Computer

Mother, LLC. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 2007 WL 2302974 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 7, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: As sanction for plaintiff?s failure to comply with discovery order requiring production of ?all electronically stored information regarding its finances,” court struck plaintiff’s claim for loss of profits and ordered plaintiff to pay reasonable expenses, costs, and attorneys? fees incurred by defendant in bringing motion

Nature of Case: Trade dress infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI regarding plaintiff’s finances

Tomlinson v. El Paso Corp., 245 F.R.D. 474 (D. Colo. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court rejected defendants’ claim that they had no control over third party’s ?computerized infrastructure? and ordered production of electronic pension plan records by defendants; because ERISA sets out employer’s responsibilities for the proper maintenance and retention of pension and welfare plan records and employer cannot delegate those duties, records maintained by third party were in “possession, custody or control” of defendants for purposes of discovery

Nature of Case: Claims under ERISA

Electronic Data Involved: Pension and welfare plan records maintained by third party

Autotech Techs. Ltd. P?ship v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., 2007 WL 2746650 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 17, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant argued that extracting requested information regarding 56,000 to 60,000 customer invoices from computer system would cost as much as $80,000, and alternative method for extracting information proposed by plaintiff was unsuccessful, court held parties to their prior agreement and determined that reasonable allocation was for plaintiff to pay 62 percent and defendant to pay the remainder; court further ordered defendant to provide proof of actual cost and proof of actual payment and stated that, if defendant is able to extract information for less than $80,000 or if parties arrive at different cost-shifting formula, that will control

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Customer information stored in database

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