Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Binswanger of Pa., Inc. v. Tru Serv Corp., 2003 WL 22429059 (E.D. Pa. May 21, 2003)
2
Collaboration Props., Inc. v. Polycom, Inc., 224 F.R.D. 473 (N.D. Cal. 2004)
3
Dikeman v. Mary A. Stearns, P.C., 560 S.E.2d 115 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)
4
Glover v. Standard Fed. Bank, 2001 WL 34635710 (D. Minn. Nov. 9, 2001)
5
Hypro, LLC v. Reser, 2004 WL 2905321 (D. Minn. Dec. 10, 2004)
6
Landmark Legal Found. v. EPA, 272 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D.D.C. 2003)
7
In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Reports Sec. Litig., 2004 WL 305601 (S.D.N.Y Feb. 18, 2004)
8
Physicians Interactive v. Lathian Systems, Inc., 2003 WL 23018270 (E.D. Va. Dec. 5, 2003)
9
Ranta v. Ranta, 2004 WL 504588 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 25, 2004)
10
S. Diagnostic Assoc. v. Bencosme, 833 So.2d 801 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Collaboration Props., Inc. v. Polycom, Inc., 224 F.R.D. 473 (N.D. Cal. 2004)

Key Insight: To enable parties to discuss more meaningfully the proper scope of any privilege and correlative redactions, court ordered producing party to show requesting party’s counsel non-redacted emails at meet and confer, reserving producing party’s right to assert any applicable privilege; court noted that process was especially appropriate since producing party had not argued that disclosure would result in unfair advantage to requesting party, but that material was irrelevant and it feared waiving privilege as to future third parties

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

Dikeman v. Mary A. Stearns, P.C., 560 S.E.2d 115 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)

Key Insight: Former client’s discovery requests, including request for hard drives of lawyer’s computers that had generated documents pertaining to client, were overbroad, oppressive and annoying

Nature of Case: Fee dispute between lawyer and former client

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive

Glover v. Standard Fed. Bank, 2001 WL 34635710 (D. Minn. Nov. 9, 2001)

Key Insight: Where evidence showed there was no feasible and economic electronic means by which certain data could be produced, court ruled that, to the extent defendants intended to introduce evidence related to such data at trial, defendants would be required to produce all such evidence, documentary, electronic or otherwise, upon which they intend to rely

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: Information regarding damages, offsets and class member eligibility

Hypro, LLC v. Reser, 2004 WL 2905321 (D. Minn. Dec. 10, 2004)

Key Insight: In light of defendant’s previous attempt to delete incriminating email and documents from his company laptop, court entered order requiring all parties to preserve and protect evidence

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of corporate opportunity and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents and mail

Landmark Legal Found. v. EPA, 272 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D.D.C. 2003)

Key Insight: EPA violated preliminary injunction that prohibited destruction of potentially responsive documents by reformatting hard drives and erasing or overwriting backup tapes containing potentially responsive email; EPA held in civil contempt and ordered to pay plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of EPA’s contumacious conduct

Nature of Case: FOIA action

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives and email stored on backup tapes

In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Reports Sec. Litig., 2004 WL 305601 (S.D.N.Y Feb. 18, 2004)

Key Insight: Where defendants avowed that they were aware of their obligations and have taken and are continuing to take all necessary steps to preserve all potentially relevant electronic evidence, court determined there was no “imminent risk” that any deleted data would be overwritten and rendered irretrievable, and denied plaintiffs’ motion for order lifting automatic stay on discovery for purpose of preserving and restoring deleted email

Nature of Case: Securities class action

Electronic Data Involved: Email allegedly deleted by individual defendant and his subordinates

Physicians Interactive v. Lathian Systems, Inc., 2003 WL 23018270 (E.D. Va. Dec. 5, 2003)

Key Insight: Court allowed limited expedited discovery to enter and obtain mirror images of defendants’ computer equipment containing electronic data relating to alleged hacking attacks on plaintiff’s server; discovery was limited to information related to alleged attacks, and assistance of computer forensic expert was required

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related torts

Electronic Data Involved: Evidence of computer hacking

Ranta v. Ranta, 2004 WL 504588 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 25, 2004)

Key Insight: Plaintiff wife ordered to stop using the couple’s laptop computer and deposit it with the clerk of court, so that it may be marked as evidence and stored in court’s vault; order extended to all floppy disks, CDs, etc; neither party to be allowed to access the laptop, rather, it may only be accessed by a recognized computer expert under oath testifying from the witness stand in open court

Nature of Case: Divorce proceeding

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

S. Diagnostic Assoc. v. Bencosme, 833 So.2d 801 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Key Insight: Appellate court granted writ and quashed trial court’s order granting party’s motion for leave to inspect non-party’s computer system; remanded with directions to trial court to craft a narrowly-tailored order that sets parameters and limitations on the inspection

Nature of Case: Insurance bad faith

Electronic Data Involved: Computer system; records of payments to physicians

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