Catagory:Case Summaries

1
In re Benun, 339 B.R. 115 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2006)
2
O’Grady v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 72 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)
3
Forterra Sys., Inc. v. Avatar Factory, 2006 WL 2458804 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2006)
4
OKI Am., Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 2006 WL 2547464 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2006)
5
In re Exxon Corp., 208 S.W.3d 70 (Tex. App. 2006)
6
Bedford, LLC v. Safeco Ins. Co., 2006 WL 3616434 (Wash. App. Dec. 11, 2006) (Unpublished)
7
Kimbrough v. City of Cocoa, 2006 WL 3500873 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2006)
8
Ky. Speedway, LLC v. Nat’l Ass’n of Stock Car Auto Racing, 2006 WL 5097354 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 18, 2006)
9
Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 2004 WL 5571412 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2004), affirmed, 464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006)
10
Treppel v. Biovail Corp., 233 F.R.D. 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

In re Benun, 339 B.R. 115 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2006)

Key Insight: Where trustee, in a practical attempt to maximize assets and minimize expenses, attempted to reach blanket accord with patent holder’s counsel that document inspection would not serve as a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, disclosure of privileged document was inadvertent and did not constitute waiver; court denied patent holder’s motion to depose attorney who had represented both debtor and his corporation in infringement action and compel production of certain documents from attorney’s files

Nature of Case: Lengthy adversary proceeding brought by party suing debtor for patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy documents and “massive hard drive” assembled by bankruptcy trustee for safekeeping

O’Grady v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 72 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)

Key Insight: Internet publishers successfully petitioned California appellate court for writ of certiorari directing that subpoenas issued by Apple Computer, Inc. be quashed; trial court erred in denying motion for protective order because, among other reasons, subpoena to email service provider could not be enforced consistent with the plain terms of the federal Stored Communications Act

Nature of Case: Underlying suit involved misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email containing information regarding sources of trade secret information posted on internet

Forterra Sys., Inc. v. Avatar Factory, 2006 WL 2458804 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2006)

Key Insight: Court ordered parties to meet and confer and agree upon appropriate procedures for plaintiff?s expert to view disputed source code in his office in electronic format, and ordered plaintiff to file a declaration from the expert agreeing to be bound by such procedures; parties further ordered to meet and confer and agree upon a procedure by which expert could seek to change the designation of portions of the source code from his eyes only to outside counsel only

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

OKI Am., Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 2006 WL 2547464 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2006)

Key Insight: Court denied party’s motion to compel financial data in searchable electronic format in part because moving party had itself refused to produce its financials in searchable electronic format

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Financial materials produced on CD in unsearchable “TIFF” format

In re Exxon Corp., 208 S.W.3d 70 (Tex. App. 2006)

Key Insight: After concluding that personal injury plaintiffs had failed to establish any document withholding or other discovery abuse by Exxon, state appellate court conditionally granted writ of mandamus and directed the trial court to vacate its orders requiring Exxon to present a deponent to testify about documents that had been requested, specifically as to: (1) existence; (2) electronic creation, duplication and storage; (3) document retention and destruction policies; (4) location; (5) organization, indexing and filing; (6) method of search; (7) completeness; and (8) authenticity

Nature of Case: Petition for writ of mandamus

Electronic Data Involved: Rule 30(b)(6) deposition

Bedford, LLC v. Safeco Ins. Co., 2006 WL 3616434 (Wash. App. Dec. 11, 2006) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Trial court did not err in denying motion for curative jury instructions, a sanction of default, and, after the verdict, a new trial, based upon defendant’s failure to produce a draft expert report; finding no misconduct, trial court had observed: “While I agree that . . . hard copies of draft [expert] reports are discoverable, I am aware of no legal principle that would require a testifying expert witness to separately retain all electronic drafts, including those that were overridden or subsumed during the drafting process.”

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Draft expert report

Kimbrough v. City of Cocoa, 2006 WL 3500873 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2006)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for spoliation sanctions based upon defendant’s failure to produce complete copy of particular monthly medical report where plaintiffs failed to show that duty to preserve attached to the report, or that report was crucial to their claims, and there was no evidence of bad faith, especially since defendant had gone to “extraordinary lengths” to attempt to retrieve a copy of the complete report

Nature of Case: Civil rights, excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Monthly medical report

Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 2004 WL 5571412 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2004), affirmed, 464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff deleted whole directories without looking at their contents and designed drive wiping program to write over data indiscriminately after he had notice of the pendency of the litigation, court concluded that ?the extreme nature? of plaintiff?s bad faith behavior, combined with harm done to defendants, merited dismissal of plaintiff?s claims with prejudice; court further ordered plaintiff to pay defendants $65,000 to reimburse them for expenses incurred in investigating and litigating spoliation issue

Nature of Case: Retaliation under False Claims Act and other federal statutes, and Washington state law claims

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

Treppel v. Biovail Corp., 233 F.R.D. 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

Key Insight: Preservation order not warranted under three-part balancing test, but defendants would be required to treat Document Retention Questionnaire and supplemental letter inquiries regarding electronic document maintenance and retention as interrogatories and provide substantive responses since plaintiff provided ample basis and deposition was no substitute; magistrate also ordered production of electronic records in native file format since defendant had not provided any substantive basis for objection

Nature of Case: Defamation, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and civil conspiracy

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other electronic records

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