Tag: Appointed Expert

1
Small v. Univ. Med. Ctr., No. 2:13-cv-0298-APG-PAL (D. Nev. Aug. 9, 2018)
2
Benedict v. Hankook Tire (E.D. Va., 2018)
3
Fid. Nat?l Title Ins. Co. v. Captiva Lake Invs., L.L.C., No. 4:10?CV?1890 (CEJ), 2015 WL 94560 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2015)
4
Burnett v. Ford Motor Co., No. 3:13?cv?14207, 2015 WL 1650439 (S.D. W. Va. April 14, 2015); Burd v. Ford Motor Co., No. 3:13?cv?20976, 2015 WL 1650447 (S.D. W. Va. April 14, 2015); Johnson v. Ford Motor Co., No. 3:13?cv?06529, 2015 WL 1650428 (S.D. W. Va. April 14, 2015)
5
Joffe v. Google, Inc., No. 10-md-02184-CRB (MEJ), 2014 WL 4681035 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 19, 2014)
6
Alter v. Rocky Pt. Sch. Dist., No. 13-1100 (JS)(AKT), 2014 WL 4966119 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2014)
7
Small v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., No. 2:13-cv-00298-APG-PAL, 2014 WL 4079507 (D. Nev. Aug. 18, 2014)
8
Olney v. Job.com, No. 1:12-cv-01724-LJO-SKO, 2014 WL 5430350 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2014)
9
Enters. Int?l, Inc. v. Int?l Knife & Saw, Inc., No. C12-5638 BHS, 2014 WL 2009087 (W.D. Wash. May 16, 2014)
10
Am. Health, Inc. v. Chevere, No. 12-1678 (PG), 2014 WL 3955906 (PG), 2014 WL 3955906 (D.P.R. Aug. 14, 2014)

Small v. Univ. Med. Ctr., No. 2:13-cv-0298-APG-PAL (D. Nev. Aug. 9, 2018)

Key Insight: Defendant’s failure to preserve and produce ESI responsive to plantiffs’ discovery requests.

Nature of Case: unpaid wages and overtime claims collective action

Electronic Data Involved: deleted electronic records, undecipherable codes, mobile device data, text messages

Keywords: adverse inference instruction, unintelligible, mockery of the orderly administration of justice

View Case Opinion

Fid. Nat?l Title Ins. Co. v. Captiva Lake Invs., L.L.C., No. 4:10?CV?1890 (CEJ), 2015 WL 94560 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2015)

Key Insight: Where inspection by court-appointed specialist revealed that plaintiff deleted emails, failed to institute a litigation hold, and delayed completing a comprehensive search of its electronic files, events which defendant and the court would not have known about but for the inspection, the court said plaintiff was subject to sanctions for failing to secure relevant emails and for prejudicial delay in production of discoverable material and that the court would instruct jurors that they may, but are not required to, assume the contents of deleted emails would have been adverse to the plaintiff, but the court would also allow for plaintiff to put on rebuttal evidence showing ?an innocent explanation of its conduct.? Additionally, the court ordered plaintiff to pay one-half of the reasonable costs of the inspection and to pay defendant?s reasonable attorneys? fees associated with bringing the sanctions motion.

Nature of Case: Insurance Coverage Dispute

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, database contents

Burnett v. Ford Motor Co., No. 3:13?cv?14207, 2015 WL 1650439 (S.D. W. Va. April 14, 2015); Burd v. Ford Motor Co., No. 3:13?cv?20976, 2015 WL 1650447 (S.D. W. Va. April 14, 2015); Johnson v. Ford Motor Co., No. 3:13?cv?06529, 2015 WL 1650428 (S.D. W. Va. April 14, 2015)

Key Insight: Inadvertently produced ESI

Nature of Case: Product Liability

 

Joffe v. Google, Inc., No. 10-md-02184-CRB (MEJ), 2014 WL 4681035 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 19, 2014)

Key Insight: District Court adopted magistrate judge?s recommendation (at 2014 WL 4681403) but sustained two of plaintiffs? objections to Google?s Jurisdictional Discovery Proposal, ruling that the search should include not only each plaintiff?s network from which communications may have been sent, but also any other network on which plaintiffs? communications might have been received, and that plaintiffs should see the results of the special master?s searches in order to provide the special master with feedback to aid in subsequent searches

Nature of Case: Putative class action in which plaintiffs alleged that Google intentionally intercepted, recorded and stored their Wi-Fi communications

Electronic Data Involved: Google’s “Street View” data

Olney v. Job.com, No. 1:12-cv-01724-LJO-SKO, 2014 WL 5430350 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2014)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff willfully and deliberately spoliated relevant data on his computer through use of deletion programs after the duty to preserve had been triggered, magistrate judge declined to impose sanction of dismissal given that the interests of expeditious resolution had not been thwarted by plaintiff’s conduct, litigation had not been unnecessarily protracted, management of the court’s docket had not been disrupted, and although the spoliation had prejudiced defendants in presenting a full defense, a strongly worded adverse inference instruction was an alternative, less severe sanction that would adequately address defendants’ harm; court set out text of adverse inference instruction to be given to the jury and awarded defendants their reasonable attorneys? fees

Nature of Case: Class action seeking statutory damages and injunctive relief for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on plaintiff’s computer hard drive

Enters. Int?l, Inc. v. Int?l Knife & Saw, Inc., No. C12-5638 BHS, 2014 WL 2009087 (W.D. Wash. May 16, 2014)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for appointment of a neutral discovery expert and instead directed parties to meet and confer in person to create a plan to fully resolve their discovery dispute; court issued various directives and deadlines and recommended that plaintiffs send at least one paralegal or other individual with knowledge of or the capability to understand defendants? electronic and paper filing systems, to work with an appointed representative from defendants? side to search through defendants? electronic databases, and that defendants should appoint someone who could fully explain what is in the databases and assist in the search process

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic databases

Am. Health, Inc. v. Chevere, No. 12-1678 (PG), 2014 WL 3955906 (PG), 2014 WL 3955906 (D.P.R. Aug. 14, 2014)

Key Insight: Court found that entry of default was too harsh a punishment and that lesser sanction such as an adverse inference instruction was available and adequate to temper prejudice to plaintiffs resulting from individual defendant?s admitted deletion of e-mails containing plaintiff?s confidential information; court further ordered defendants to pay plaintiffs $2,500 for attorneys? fees no later than August 22, 2014

Nature of Case: Claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and Transactional Records Access Act, and the Wire and Electronic Communications and Interception of Oral Communications Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email attachments

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