Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Harbuck v. Teets, 2005 WL 2510229 (11th Cir. Oct. 12, 2005)
2
Davila v. Patel, 2005 WL 2248350 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2005)
3
Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., Inc., 2005 WL 5417506 (Tenn. Cir. Ct. Mar. 30, 2005)
4
Papyrus Tech. Corp. v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 2005 WL 1606059 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2005)
5
Appraisal Mgmt. Co. III v. FNC, Inc., 2005 WL 3088561 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 17, 2005)
6
Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., 2005 WL 5417507 (Tenn. Cir. Ct. May 31, 2005)
7
Inventory Locator Serv., LLC v. PartsBase, Inc., 2005 WL 6062855 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 19, 2005)
8
Fryer v. Brown, 2005 WL 1677940 (W.D. Wash. July 15, 2005)
9
Cook v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 2005 WL 2429422 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2005)
10
Ferrero v. Henderson, 341 F.Supp.2d 873 (S.D. Ohio 2004), opinion withdrawn in part on reconsideration, 2005 WL 1802134 (S.D. Ohio July 28, 2005)

Harbuck v. Teets, 2005 WL 2510229 (11th Cir. Oct. 12, 2005)

Key Insight: District court did not abuse its discretion where, in course of discovery dispute, it ordered both parties to submit their copies of data to the district court’s Information Technology personnel to see if the material could be retrieved, and denied plaintiff’s motion to compel when court’s personnel had no problems retrieving the data

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email and electronic documents

Davila v. Patel, 2005 WL 2248350 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2005)

Key Insight: Court ordered defendants to produce American College of Radiology reports during certain time frame, to produce all information pertaining to plaintiff contained in, or retrievable from, their computer systems, and, if requested by the United States, to make available for deposition persons with knowledge of the computer system maintained by hospital during certain time frame

Nature of Case: Medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: All information pertaining to plaintiff contained in, or retrievable from, defendants’ computer systems

Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., Inc., 2005 WL 5417506 (Tenn. Cir. Ct. Mar. 30, 2005)

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of defendant’s hard drives so that plaintiff’s computer forensics expert could search them for deleted emails since there was no evidence that defendant had consciously or purposely deleted emails and plaintiff had only “suspicions and allegations” which did not justify the costly and burdensome search requested

Nature of Case: Age discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted email

Papyrus Tech. Corp. v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 2005 WL 1606059 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2005)

Key Insight: Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of additional computer files denied where plaintiff offered no basis either for excusing delay or for deeming the files in question to be so significant as to justify reopening discovery more than five months after its close

Electronic Data Involved: Computer files

Appraisal Mgmt. Co. III v. FNC, Inc., 2005 WL 3088561 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 17, 2005)

Key Insight: Court dismissed complaint as discovery sanction finding that: (1) plaintiff’s failure to cooperate in discovery was willful, (2) plaintiff’s conduct had prejudiced the defendant by impairing its ability to prepare its defense, (3) plaintiff had received sufficient warnings that its failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal, and (4) lesser sanctions would not protect the integrity of pretrial procedures or ameliorate the prejudice already visited upon the defendant

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email and computer code

Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., 2005 WL 5417507 (Tenn. Cir. Ct. May 31, 2005)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to revise earlier court order denying production of computer hard drives for review by forensics expert, declining to adopt the law of Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) and finding that defendant had violated no duty to preserve since emails were deleted according to routine policy and at the time she filed the complaint, plaintiff made no request that emails be preserved

Nature of Case: Age discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted email

Fryer v. Brown, 2005 WL 1677940 (W.D. Wash. July 15, 2005)

Key Insight: Noting that a responding party “must cover the costs of gathering the requested item; not to cover the costs of reproduction absent a showing of good cause as to why the burden should be shifted,” court instructed plaintiff to provide hard copies of its website as defendant had requested, at defendant’s expense

Nature of Case: Copyright and trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Website pages

Cook v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 2005 WL 2429422 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2005)

Key Insight: Rule 56(f) continuance not warranted where it was uncontested that defendant had produced all relevant electronic entries in its personnel database, and even if other emails existed in computer archives as alleged, plaintiff made no showing necessary to warrant their retrieval at this late date at defendant’s expense nor had plaintiff volunteered to foot the bill for doing so

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email and electronic entries in personnel database

Ferrero v. Henderson, 341 F.Supp.2d 873 (S.D. Ohio 2004), opinion withdrawn in part on reconsideration, 2005 WL 1802134 (S.D. Ohio July 28, 2005)

Key Insight: Although plaintiff was unable to make out FMLA claim, court sanctioned defendant under Rule 26(g)(3) for failure to timely produce dispositive payroll data, and ordered it to pay plaintiff the reasonable attorney fees and expenses incurred in prosecuting FMLA claim, including but not limited to the time her attorney spent in pretrial preparation of the claim and in prosecuting the claim at trial

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, FMLA claim

Electronic Data Involved: Payroll data

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