Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Toftely v. Qwest Communications Corp., 2003 WL 1908022 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2003) (Unpublished)
2
US Greenfiber v. Brooks, 2002 WL 31834009 (W.D. La. Oct. 25, 2002)
3
York v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 2002 WL 31465306 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 4, 2002)
4
Adams v. Dan River Mills, Inc., 54 F.R.D. 220 (W.D. Va. 1972)
5
Bowles v. Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders, 2004 WL 2203831 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2004)
6
Comcast of Los Angeles, Inc. v. Top End Int’l, Inc., 2003 WL 22251149 (C.D. Cal. July 2, 2003)
7
Excelligence Learning Corp. v. Oriental Trading Co., 2004 WL 2452834 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2004)
8
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Nov. 15, 1993, 846 F. Supp. 11 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)
9
Itzenson v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 2000 WL 1507422 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 10, 2000)
10
Lipco Elec. Corp. v. ASG Consulting Corp., 2004 WL 1949062 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 18, 2004) (Unpublished)

Toftely v. Qwest Communications Corp., 2003 WL 1908022 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2003) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Qwest general counsel sent urgent/confidential email to managers notifying them of “legal hold” related to pending SEC investigation and advising about the need to preserve certain categories of documents. The email contained a hidden “tracer” that gave notice whenever someone forwarded the email outside the Qwest network. Qwest discharged all employees who forwarded the email to outsiders on grounds of employment misconduct; subsequent denial of unemployment benefits was affirmed.

Nature of Case: Discharged employee appealed denial of unemployment benefits

Electronic Data Involved: Email containing tracer

US Greenfiber v. Brooks, 2002 WL 31834009 (W.D. La. Oct. 25, 2002)

Key Insight: Preliminary injunction prohibiting former employee from using or disclosing any of employer’s business information and directing her to return employer’s property, equipment, documents and business and quality control records (including computer records)

Nature of Case: Employer sued former employee for breach of fiduciary duty and related torts

Electronic Data Involved: Emails and computer records

York v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 2002 WL 31465306 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 4, 2002)

Key Insight: Defendant required to produce documents regarding use of software program and designate Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify about defendant’s use of software program; defendant allowed to submit protective order “to safeguard divulgence of such information to third parties”

Nature of Case: Insurance bad faith

Electronic Data Involved: Colossus computer software program used by insurance industry to evaluate claims

Adams v. Dan River Mills, Inc., 54 F.R.D. 220 (W.D. Va. 1972)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of defendant’s current computerized master payroll file and all computer print-outs for W-2 forms of defendant’s employees, given accuracy of records and inexpensiveness of production

Nature of Case: Race discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Computerized master payroll file

Bowles v. Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders, 2004 WL 2203831 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2004)

Key Insight: Court ruled that defendant effected waiver of its attorney-client and work product privileges as to all documents on the same subject matter as the privileged documents it gave to plaintiff when she was president, since defendant’s failure to take any legal action to assert its privilege or otherwise to recover the documents for more than a year did not constitute “reasonable steps to reclaim the protected material.” Parties ordered to submit further briefing on the scope of the subject matter waiver.

Nature of Case: Former president of association sued for wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

Comcast of Los Angeles, Inc. v. Top End Int’l, Inc., 2003 WL 22251149 (C.D. Cal. July 2, 2003)

Key Insight: Defendants could not assert the privilege against self-incrimination to resist production of corporate records; court ordered individual defendants to produce all the business records on their computers

Nature of Case: Cable TV provider sued defendants alleging a scheme to illegally manufacture and sell cable TV descramblers

Electronic Data Involved: Computerized sales data

Excelligence Learning Corp. v. Oriental Trading Co., 2004 WL 2452834 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2004)

Key Insight: Court granted defendant’s motion to compel production where defendant agreed to limit scope of email request; further, court rejected defendant’s undue burden objection to plaintiff’s discovery requests where defense counsel argued that retrieval of responsive information would be time-consuming because it involved cross-referencing many databases and backup tapes, but did not submit the information in the form of a declaration

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets and related torts

Electronic Data Involved: Email; vendor information relating to 278 products

In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Nov. 15, 1993, 846 F. Supp. 11 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)

Key Insight: Grand jury subpoena demanding production of all computer hard drives and disks of specified individuals (as opposed to specified categories of information) quashed because it was unreasonably broad

Nature of Case: Grand jury proceedings

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives and floppy diskettes

Itzenson v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 2000 WL 1507422 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 10, 2000)

Key Insight: Discovery deadline extended and defendant ordered to “use every practicable means” to identify requested claims files; if defendant truly cannot segregate the claim files, defendant would be directed to make available a representative with requisite knowledge and skill to assist plaintiff’s representative in reviewing and identifying as promptly as possible each unsegregated file which met plaintiff’s criteria

Nature of Case: ERISA action to recover death benefits under employee benefit plan

Electronic Data Involved: Database re insurance claims

Lipco Elec. Corp. v. ASG Consulting Corp., 2004 WL 1949062 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 18, 2004) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Noting differences between federal law and New York law regarding cost-shifting in discovery, court stated it did not have sufficient information about the costs associated with the requested discovery, but concluded that until plaintiffs indicated a willingness to pay for the requested electronic discovery (whatever its cost), court would not order its production

Nature of Case: Claims based on breach of contract and for an accounting

Electronic Data Involved: Computer data

Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.