Case Summaries – Page 354 – Electronic Discovery Law

Krumwiede v. Brighton Assocs., L.L.C., 2006 WL 2714609 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 20, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Further to its previous orders imposing $111,348 in sanctions against Krumwiede for willful and bad faith spoliation of evidence, and where Krumwiede presented no evidence of financial inability to pay sanctions amount, court ordered Krumwiede to pay sanctions within 30 days or the remainder of his pleadings would be stricken

Nature of Case: Former employee who went to work for competitor sued for back pay and reformation of employment agreement; former employer asserted counterclaims for breach of non-compete and confidentiality clauses and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computers

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist. v. Spencer, 2006 WL 3050860 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where plaintiff claimed that defendants did not produce all requested electronic documents and that defense counsel had not conducted a proper inquiry to determine whether or not all electronic documents were produced, court ordered defendants to verify that all requested electronic documents were produced and to produce any electronic documents not yet provided

Nature of Case: Fraud and related claims stemming from BART construction subcontracts

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

DE Techs., Inc. v. Dell Inc., 2006 WL 3500962 (W.D. Va. Dec. 4, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Magistrate judge barred Dell from using certain documents at trial since plaintiff had no notice that the documents would be relied upon by Dell to support its defenses until the documents were specifically produced after the discovery deadline; court noted that, although the documents were among some 542,917 documents produced by Dell in electronic form and in a searchable format using a CaseData System, there was no evidence that Dell ever identified any of the documents provided on the CaseData System as responsive to any particular discovery request, and documents were neither produced as “kept in the ordinary course of business” nor as “ordinarily maintained”

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents produced in searchable database

Discover Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 2006 WL 3462125 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court declined to compel American Express to search for email sent from and to certain executives who were no longer employed by American Express, since the moving parties had not agreed to search for email sent from or to their own former executives and American Express had already produced some 27,501 emails sent to or from certain former executives through the production of email from other custodians

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Email of former executives

Wells v. Orange County Sch. Bd., 2006 WL 4824479 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where defendant’s initial email search was not appropriate and incomplete and court observed that ?better communications and diligence ? e.g., through personal interaction rather than email between general counsel and the IT director ? would have avoided one year?s delay in producing relevant documents,? court denied motion to compel since record indicated that further searches would be futile, but awarded plaintiff costs of motion

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Durdin v. Kuryakyn Holdings, Inc., 2006 WL 6040466 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 7, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where defendant never attempted to preserve email related to disputed products, did not impose email preservation directive and did not suspend policy of destroying all email after 30 days, but asserted that no relevant email was destroyed because its employees never exchanged emails on topics relevant to lawsuit, court declined to enter default judgment absent stronger proof of bad faith intent and reserved decision on adverse inference instruction; court would allow parties to explore with witnesses at trial whether they exchanged and then destroyed relevant email

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Super Group Packaging & Distrib. Corp. v. Smurfit Stone Container Corp., 2006 WL 274779 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 27, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: In court’s decision ruling on parties’ respective post-trial motions, court affirmed its prior determination that defendants did not use reasonable efforts to locate responsive emails or provide them to plaintiff, and granted plaintiff’s motion to award $11,310 in sanctions representing plaintiff’s costs and fees expended on the discovery dispute

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment and related torts

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Washburn v. Lavoie, 437 F.3d 84 (D.C. Cir. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Magistrate did not err in refusing to order defendants to produce all emails that mentioned plaintiff or plaintiff’s lawsuit, where magistrate did order defendants to produce the emails for in camera inspection and magistrate’s personal review showed that nearly half were devoid of anything bearing upon the litigation and the other half dealt with irrelevant issues such as the costs of litigation, retention of counsel and the need to answer interrogatories

Nature of Case: Defamation

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Performance Chevrolet, Inc. v. Market Scan Info. Sys., Inc., 2006 WL 1042359 (D. Idaho Apr. 18, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied parties’ cross-motions for sanctions based upon spoliation; deletion of software files was unauthorized act by an employee of plaintiff 14 months before case was filed and litigation was not yet reasonably foreseeable

Nature of Case: Contract breach and fraud involving leased software

Electronic Data Involved: Software files on computer hard drive

Int’l Sec. Mgmt. Group, Inc. v. Sawyer, 2006 WL 1638537 (M.D. Tenn. June 6, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where court’s TRO (1) prohibited defendants from destroying relevant documents, materials, information or other property, including electronically stored information and (2) required defendants to immediately return any property of plaintiff in defendants’ possession, custody or control, including electronically stored information, court denied request to convert TRO into preliminary injunction as to (1) because no evidence was presented at the hearing suggesting that defendants had engaged in such unlawful destructive behavior in the past or that they would do so in the future, and as to (2) because defendants had already complied with the TRO requiring such action; court entered preliminary injunction as to other matters

Nature of Case: Breach of employment agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Email and electronic documents

Catagory:Case Summaries