Case Summaries – Page 358 – Electronic Discovery Law

Ryan v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 2006 WL 3497875 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to timely disclose that it was withholding certain information from production and defense counsel made representations several times to plaintiff and to court that she had provided full and complete discovery, court: (1) granted motion to compel production of database in hard copy and in electronic form with specific redactions noted and included in revised privilege log; (2) extended discovery cut-off date; and (3) awarded sanctions solely against defense counsel (and not client) for costs of motion

Nature of Case: Fraud and medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Cornell Research Found., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2006 WL 5097357 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court found that litigation tactic employed by HP, in making such an extraordinary voluminous, twelfth hour production, was “disturbing,” but denied plaintiffs’ request that HP prepare a detailed index of material produced since it would be unduly harsh and potentially intrusive on attorney work product; court instead invited plaintiffs to seek additional, limited discovery if appropriate and noted tactic might be relevant to court’s declaring the lawsuit an exceptional case for purposes of awarding attorneys’ fees and costs in the event plaintiffs’ infringement claims were successful

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Over 38 gigabytes of ESI produced late in discovery

Friedman v. Superior Court, 2006 WL 2497981 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2006) (Not Officially Published)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Finding requests for production too broad and not reasonably particularized, appellate court concluded that trial court had erred in, among other things, not adequately resolving the question of how burdensome compliance with production requests would have proven to nonparties, where nonparties? counsel opined that it would take 5,260 hours to review email, at cost of $1,393,900, and requesting party?s expert estimated only 10 hours for such review; appellate court granted writ and vacated trial court’s orders

Nature of Case: Nonparties sought writ of mandate overturning trial court’s orders granting motion to compel depositions and production of documents pursuant to subpoenas

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Afremov v. Amplatz, 2006 WL 44341 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2006) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Lawyer for party successfully appealed sanctions imposed on him by trial court following emergency evidentiary hearing regarding the deletion of files from party’s home computer that was subject to inspection order; trial court violated lawyer’s due process protections by failing to provide sufficient notice of the purpose of the emergency hearing or the potential for sanctions

Nature of Case: Underlying claims were settled, and court appointed a receiver

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer, emails

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

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 2006

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

Catagory:Case Summaries