Tag:Inspection

1
Marketfare Annunciation, LLC v. United Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2007 WL 3273440 (E.D. La. Nov. 5, 2007)
2
Peterson v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2007 WL 3232501 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 1, 2007
3
In re EZ Pay Servs., Inc., 380 B.R. 861 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2007)
4
Lamb v. Maloney, 850 N.Y.S.2d 138 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
5
Hudson Global Res. Holdings, Inc. v. Hill, 2007 WL 1545678 (W.D. Pa. May 25, 2007)
6
Autotech Techs. Ltd. P?ship v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., 2007 WL 2746650 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 17, 2007)
7
RMS Servs.-USA, Inc. v. Houston, 2007 WL 1058923 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 2007)
8
Afremov v. Amplatz, 2006 WL 44341 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2006) (Unpublished)
9
Madden v. Wyeth, 2006 WL 568015 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2006)
10
Happel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2006 WL 642562 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 8, 2006)

Marketfare Annunciation, LLC v. United Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2007 WL 3273440 (E.D. La. Nov. 5, 2007)

Key Insight: Because trial was imminent and discovery had closed, and plaintiffs never sought extension of discovery deadline or expedited consideration of motion, court declined to address merits of plaintiffs? request that they be permitted to retain an expert at defendants’ expense to review defendants’ systems for relevant data, and, if data had been irretrievably deleted, for monetary and other sanctions; court advised that the appropriate method for relief for non-production of electronic data was for plaintiffs to first move to compel production of omitted materials, as opposed to bypassing this step and seeking sanctions directly

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other electronic information about plaintiffs’ insurance claims

Peterson v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2007 WL 3232501 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 1, 2007

Key Insight: Court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion to enter and inspect crossing area and directed defendant to arrange for an employee to be on-site during the inspection to provide a download of all available date from event recorders and other components and equipment of the crossing signal system stored on-site; court denied motion to compel production of particular employee’s computer since the computer had been returned to a vendor and defendant had already produced a copy of computer’s hard drive

Nature of Case: Claims arising from collision between freight train and automobile

Electronic Data Involved: Data from event recorders and other components and equipment of the crossing signal system

In re EZ Pay Servs., Inc., 380 B.R. 861 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2007)

Key Insight: Court approved Trustee?s request for permission to pay computer forensics expert $70,000 as a necessary cost and expense of preserving the estate, where recovery of deleted electronic information was necessary to enable Trustee to locate and administer valuable assets of estate and to understand debtor’s prepetition transactions, and where expert?s services provided a concrete benefit for the estate since approximately $400,000 in assets was recovered by Trustee as a result

Nature of Case: Bankruptcy case

Electronic Data Involved: 14 hard drives; deleted data

Lamb v. Maloney, 850 N.Y.S.2d 138 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Key Insight: Trial court did not err in denying without prejudice plaintiff?s motion, based on spoliation of evidence, to strike defendants? answers or preclude defendants? use of office records to support their defenses; however, court did err in not granting alternative relief requested, i.e., compelling additional discovery, including depositions of certain witnesses, production of records, and inspection of computers, since such additional discovery was reasonably calculated to produce relevant and material evidence and defendants failed to demonstrate any prejudice as a result

Nature of Case: Medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Office computer hard drive and information regarding its destruction

Hudson Global Res. Holdings, Inc. v. Hill, 2007 WL 1545678 (W.D. Pa. May 25, 2007)

Key Insight: Granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion for TRO/preliminary injunction, court also ordered counsel to confer and suggest within ten days an agreeable method by which plaintiff, through its computer forensics expert or otherwise, may access and permanently delete or retrieve its information from defendant’s portable external hard drive and personal computer which were in court’s custody

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleged claims of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition against former employee

Electronic Data Involved: Business data; laptop and portable hard drive

Autotech Techs. Ltd. P?ship v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., 2007 WL 2746650 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 17, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendant argued that extracting requested information regarding 56,000 to 60,000 customer invoices from computer system would cost as much as $80,000, and alternative method for extracting information proposed by plaintiff was unsuccessful, court held parties to their prior agreement and determined that reasonable allocation was for plaintiff to pay 62 percent and defendant to pay the remainder; court further ordered defendant to provide proof of actual cost and proof of actual payment and stated that, if defendant is able to extract information for less than $80,000 or if parties arrive at different cost-shifting formula, that will control

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Customer information stored in database

Afremov v. Amplatz, 2006 WL 44341 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2006) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Lawyer for party successfully appealed sanctions imposed on him by trial court following emergency evidentiary hearing regarding the deletion of files from party’s home computer that was subject to inspection order; trial court violated lawyer’s due process protections by failing to provide sufficient notice of the purpose of the emergency hearing or the potential for sanctions

Nature of Case: Underlying claims were settled, and court appointed a receiver

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer, emails

Madden v. Wyeth, 2006 WL 568015 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2006)

Key Insight: Court awarded plaintiff $47,970 in sanctions representing attorney’s fees and expenses reasonably incurred in bringing motion to compel discovery of Wyeth’s adverse event database and production of prior versions of certain reports and source documents; court had earlier granted plaintiff and her expert supervised access to defendant’s database

Nature of Case: Drug products liability

Electronic Data Involved: Database and source documents for certain reports

Happel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2006 WL 642562 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 8, 2006)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff alleged that Wal-Mart Pharmacy wrongly filled a prescription for a drug to which she was allergic, and that Wal-Mart’s computer system would have listed plaintiff’s drug allergies, flashed a warning and required further protocols before the drug could be dispensed to plaintiff, court granted motion to compel production of the computer used by the pharmacist (on August 4, 1993) and any reports or logs relating to the computer’s repair, maintenance or malfunction

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Computer used by particular Wal-Mart Pharmacy in 1993 and reports or logs relating to computer’s repair, maintenance or malfunction

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