Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Mosaid Techs. Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2004 WL 2550309 (D.N.J. Oct. 1, 2004) (“Mosaid III”)
2
United States v. First Data, 287 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D.D.C. 2003)
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)

Mosaid Techs. Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2004 WL 2550309 (D.N.J. Oct. 1, 2004) (“Mosaid III”)

Key Insight: Finding representative parts/assumptions sanctions imposed by magistrate to be moderate, fair, and narrowly tailored to redress defendant’s discovery violations, district court upheld sanctions with slight modifications

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Schematics, completion reports, netlists and other technical documents

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)

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