Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Tech. AG, 222 F.R.D. 280 (E.D. Va. 2004)
2
Sonnino v. Univ. of Kansas Hosp. Auth., 220 F.R.D. 633 (D. Kan. 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)

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

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