Catagory:Case Summaries

1
United States v. First Data, 287 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D.D.C. 2003)
2
Pamlab, L.L.C. v. Rite Aid Corp., 2004 WL 2358106 (E.D. La. Oct. 13, 2004)
3
Federal Court Issues Opinion On E-Discovery Sanctions and Evidence Preservation
4
Fero v. Excellus Health Plan, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-06569-EAW (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2018)

United States v. First Data, 287 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D.D.C. 2003)

Key Insight: Scheduling and case management order provides, inter alia, that document requests shall be responded to and documents produced within ten days after service, and that parties will produce documents in either hard copy form, or, in the case of electronic documents, in the native electronic format (or a mutually agreeable format)

Pamlab, L.L.C. v. Rite Aid Corp., 2004 WL 2358106 (E.D. La. Oct. 13, 2004)

Key Insight: Court ruled that plaintiff should determine, either informally or during a corporate deposition of defendant, what information responsive to interrogatory could be retrieved from defendant?s computer system and what could only be retrieved manually; to the extent the information could only be retrieved manually, parties were ordered to attempt to agree on a sampling process

Electronic Data Involved: Computer databases

Federal Court Issues Opinion On E-Discovery Sanctions and Evidence Preservation

The federal district court for the Southern District of New York has issued another ruling (available here) relating to electronic discovery in the ongoing matter of Zubulake v. UBS Warburg.

The court’s most recent decision, issued October 22, 2003, addresses Zubulake’s motion for sanctions against UBS for its failure to preserve missing backup tapes and deleted emails. See Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC, 2003 WL 22410619 (S.D.N.Y.). Although the court established no definitive guidelines regarding when backup tapes must be preserved, the decision discusses this issue at length, describing both situations where the tapes should be preserved, and situations where they need not be preserved.

After considering UBS’s failure to preserve the missing backup tapes and deleted emails, the court declined to grant an adverse inference instruction against UBS, or to impose on UBS the full cost of restoring certain backup tapes, but did order UBS to bear the plaintiff’s costs of re-deposing certain individuals concerning issues raised either by the destruction of evidence or by any newly-produced emails. Read More

Fero v. Excellus Health Plan, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-06569-EAW (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2018)

Key Insight: Reconsideration of ruling that plaintiffs lacked standing. Expert affidavit shows substantial risk of identity theft and sale of PII and PHI on the dark web, establishing injury-in-fact.

Nature of Case: Class action arising out of a data breach and alleging identity theft.

Electronic Data Involved: Dark web evidence

Keywords: PII and PHI, dark web, identity theft, Joe Church, Digital Shield, X1 Social Discovery

View Case Opinion

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