Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Giardina v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2003 WL 1338826 (E.D. La. Mar. 14, 2003)
2
Hollingsworth v. Time Warner Cable, 812 N.E.2d 976 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
3
Lakewood Eng’g & Mfg. Co. v. Lasko Prods., Inc., 2003 WL 1220254 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 14, 2003)
4
Med. Billing Consultants, Inc. v. Intelligent Med. Objects, Inc., 2003 WL 1809465 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 4, 2003)
5
Pennar Software Corp. v. Fortune 500 Sys., Ltd., 51 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 279, 2001 WL 1319162 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2001)
6
Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Tech. AG, 222 F.R.D. 280 (E.D. Va. 2004)
7
Sonnino v. Univ. of Kansas Hosp. Auth., 220 F.R.D. 633 (D. Kan. 2004)
8
3M v. Pribyl, 259 F.3d 587, 606 n.5 (7th Cir. 2001)
9
United States v. Sungard Data Sys., 173 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2001)
10
Xpedior Creditor Trust v. Credit Suisse First Boston (USA), Inc., 2003 WL 22283835 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2003)

Giardina v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2003 WL 1338826 (E.D. La. Mar. 14, 2003)

Key Insight: Magistrate’s order granting plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery and awarding attorneys’ fees upheld; employer required to provide available data and also respond by stating the steps taken to obtain non-work related internet sites accessed during the dates requested, including detailed explanation of efforts to obtain information and reasons its efforts were not successful if it was unable to obtain the data to fully respond to interrogatory

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Information re all non-work related internet sites accessed on certain of employer’s computers during relevant period

Hollingsworth v. Time Warner Cable, 812 N.E.2d 976 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)

Key Insight: Where defendant voluntarily divulged a privileged email communication at unemployment hearing and in response to discovery request, defendant waived any privilege with respect to the communication and to testimony and documents regarding the same subject matter; trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for return of the communication and for protective order, and in denying plaintiff’s motion to compel

Nature of Case: Wrongful discharge

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Lakewood Eng’g & Mfg. Co. v. Lasko Prods., Inc., 2003 WL 1220254 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 14, 2003)

Key Insight: Although plaintiff’s production of relevant email and other documents in electronic form after the close of discovery demonstrated lack of good faith effort to produce all requested discovery in timely manner, sanctions were not warranted

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other documents in electronic form

Med. Billing Consultants, Inc. v. Intelligent Med. Objects, Inc., 2003 WL 1809465 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 4, 2003)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to allow experts to perform physical inspection of their computer equipment and files, since full disclosure of email had been provided by defendants and inspection was likely to be unduly burdensome

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Defendant’s computer equipment and files

Pennar Software Corp. v. Fortune 500 Sys., Ltd., 51 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 279, 2001 WL 1319162 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2001)

Key Insight: Defendant’s discovery abuses and deletion of web site pages and other electronic information warranted entry of order enjoining spoliation and imposing monetary sanctions against defendant

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Web site pages; log files and backup tapes of nonparty web hosting company

Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Tech. AG, 222 F.R.D. 280 (E.D. Va. 2004)

Key Insight: Based on in camera review, court granted defendant’s motion to compel based on the crime/fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege, ordered production of other documents on same subject matter and further ruled that discovery would be allowed regarding documents produced and on the issue of sanctions

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email, backup tapes

Sonnino v. Univ. of Kansas Hosp. Auth., 220 F.R.D. 633 (D. Kan. 2004)

Key Insight: Defendant ordered to provide a complete and full response to interrogatory seeking information about Hospital Authority’s computer and email systems; defendant’s “very brief and general response” was insufficient

Nature of Case: Former employee alleged violations of free speech, due process and gender discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Information re computer and email systems

3M v. Pribyl, 259 F.3d 587, 606 n.5 (7th Cir. 2001)

Key Insight: Negative inference instruction warranted where six gigabytes of music were downloaded onto hard drive the night before the computer was to be turned over for inspection

Nature of Case: Manufacturer sued former employees and their new competing company for misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

United States v. Sungard Data Sys., 173 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2001)

Key Insight: Motion to preclude in-house counsel from having access to confidential information produced by competitors denied; court established detailed protective order for handling of confidential information

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

Xpedior Creditor Trust v. Credit Suisse First Boston (USA), Inc., 2003 WL 22283835 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2003)

Key Insight: Motion for protective order requiring plaintiff to share the cost of restoring computer files denied; Zubulake judge applied Zubulake factors and concluded that cost-shifting was not appropriate

Nature of Case: Breach of contract class action

Electronic Data Involved: Computer files housed on decommissioned systems

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.