Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Bank One, N.A. v. Echo Acceptance Corp., 2006 WL 2564262 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 1, 2006)
2
Johnson v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 238 F.R.D. 648 (D. Kan. 2006)
3
Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 2006 WL 3476735 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2006)
4
Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 2006 WL 335846 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 14, 2006)
5
Balboa Threadworks, Inc. v. Stucky, 2006 WL 763668 (D. Kan. Mar. 24, 2006)
6
Gavrilovic v. Worldwide Language Res., Inc., 2006 WL 1342839 (D.N.H. Apr. 18, 2006)
7
Tech. Recycling Corp. v. City of Taylor, 2006 WL 1792413 (6th Cir. June 28, 2006) (Unpublished)
8
Krumwiede v. Brighton Assocs., L.L.C., 2006 WL 2349985 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 9, 2006)
9
United States ex rel. Englund v. Los Angeles County, 2006 WL 1490641 (E.D. Cal. May 26, 2006)
10
In re Celexa and Lexapro Prods. Liab. Litig., 2006 WL 3497757 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 13, 2006)

Bank One, N.A. v. Echo Acceptance Corp., 2006 WL 2564262 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 1, 2006)

Key Insight: Court ordered that, to the extent the information kept in database was not duplicative of hard copy complaints produced, defendants must produce customer dispute information (including related information dealing with investigations and results) available through defendants’ computer databases dealing with disputes by certain consumers

Nature of Case: Breach of indemnification agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Databases used to manage customer accounts

Johnson v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 238 F.R.D. 648 (D. Kan. 2006)

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel and overruled defendants’ objections that terms “electronic databases,” “personnel related data,” “database,” “coded fields” and “data dictionaries” were vague and ambiguous, since plaintiffs had attempted to resolve any ambiguity by providing definitions in a separate letter and court’s own guidelines referred to The Sedona Conference? comprehensive glossary of terms related to electronically stored information

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Databases

Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 2006 WL 3476735 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2006)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff provided only partial production and made false representations to court about non-existence of responsive documents, court imposed monetary sanctions and would deem as true certain contentions

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email concerning customer communications

Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 2006 WL 335846 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 14, 2006)

Key Insight: Although court decided it could not hold either party in contempt, it advised that parties? exchange of emails and written correspondence did not satisfy meet and confer requirement contained in court’s earlier Case Management Order; court understood the phrase to mean “a conference in which opposing parties actually talk to one another”

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Balboa Threadworks, Inc. v. Stucky, 2006 WL 763668 (D. Kan. Mar. 24, 2006)

Key Insight: During initial case management conferences, court ordered mirror imaging of all of defendants’ computers and peripheral equipment, e.g., ZIP drives, to be done at plaintiffs’ expense, and ordered parties to meet and confer on appropriate search protocol that would address the issue of protection of attorney client privilege and non-business related personal information which may be located on the computer hard drives

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, fraud and civil conspiracy

Electronic Data Involved: All defendants’ computers and peripheral equipment

Gavrilovic v. Worldwide Language Res., Inc., 2006 WL 1342839 (D.N.H. Apr. 18, 2006)

Key Insight: Magistrate denied defendant’s motion for contempt order under Rule 45(e) for non-party’s alleged failure to comply with subpoena and court order, where non-party had produced roughly 3,500 pages of responsive documents, and reason for non-production of four particular emails (given to defendant by ex-employee of non-party) was because non-party did not have possession of and could not produce them since the computer and server that once contained them were no longer available to non-party

Nature of Case: Sex discrimination/harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Tech. Recycling Corp. v. City of Taylor, 2006 WL 1792413 (6th Cir. June 28, 2006) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Sixth circuit affirmed dismissal of complaint as a discovery sanction under FRCP 37(b)(2)(C) and the award of all attorney fees to defendants under 42 U.S.C. ? 1988, where plaintiffs “repeatedly touted and promised to produce critical ‘smoking gun’ evidence, then failed or refused to produce it; belatedly produced an incomplete collection of evidence; falsely stated that they had produced all the evidence ordered; deliberately withheld evidence; strained credulity by claiming that they gave away original tapes of critical conversations, keeping none for themselves, and made no effort to get copies; asserted a nonsensical privilege as a reason for failing to produce more or better evidence of defendants’ allegedly defamatory statements; agreed to seek permission from the state court to produce financial and accounting documents, but never did so; and so on”

Nature of Case: Civil rights

Electronic Data Involved: Audio and videotapes supporting plaintiffs’ claims

Krumwiede v. Brighton Assocs., L.L.C., 2006 WL 2349985 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 9, 2006)

Key Insight: Further to its May 8, 2006 order imposing severe sanctions against Krumwiede for willful and bad faith spoliation of evidence, court awarded Brighton $111,348 for its costs and fees relating to sanctions motion

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

United States ex rel. Englund v. Los Angeles County, 2006 WL 1490641 (E.D. Cal. May 26, 2006)

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to complete a diligent search of all documents subject to its control, including electronic documents, and to produce all documents by certain date; court further ordered defendant to certify, in writing, that it had performed a diligent search, including of its electronic files, to locate documents responsive to plaintiff’s document requests

Nature of Case: False Claim Act

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

In re Celexa and Lexapro Prods. Liab. Litig., 2006 WL 3497757 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 13, 2006)

Key Insight: In stipulated order, parties agreed that plaintiffs would preserve hard drives used by plaintiffs and plaintiffs? decedents and that such hard drives would be imaged and analyzed pursuant to an agreed forensic examination protocol; that responsive ESI would be collected by defendants from defendants’ active IT environment and not from backup tapes absent exceptional circumstances, and that plaintiffs would defer to defendants as to the format of production

Nature of Case: Personal injury product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, ESI

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