Inspection – Page 14 – Electronic Discovery Law

MGE UPS Sys., Inc. v. Titan Specialized Servs., Inc., 2006 WL 3524502 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 6, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where evidence showed that defendant had not fully complied with preliminary injunction and had continued to retain and use disputed software, court ordered defendant to produce all of its computers for inspection by plaintiff’s computer expert to ensure that all plaintiff’s software and trade secrets were removed; court further ordered defendant to bear costs of expert’s work and to pay plaintiff its reasonable fees and expenses in bringing the motion

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Software programs, disks, hard drives

Oved & Assocs. Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Los Angeles County Met. Transp. Auth., 2006 WL 1703824 (Cal. App. June 22, 2006) (Nonpublished, Noncitable)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: No abuse of discretion to impose terminating sanctions against plaintiff after years of “discovery stonewalling” which culminated in the intentional destruction of evidence; plaintiff “regularly and routinely” disobeyed trial court orders and intentionally destroyed relevant accounting records on hard drive that was to be mirror imaged

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of funds

Electronic Data Involved: Accounting files on hard drive

C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. Thorp, 2006 WL 3300396 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 14, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Preliminary injunction ordered former employee to return customer information to plaintiff and to make available all personal computing devices in his home for inspection and review by an expert hired by plaintiff at plaintiff’s expense

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheets and home computing devices

Advante Int?l Corp. v. Mintel Learning Tech., 2006 WL 1806151 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Motion for forensic examination of opposing party’s computer hard drives denied where movant failed to provide any details about how the examination would be conducted and did not present specific, concrete evidence of concealment or destruction of evidence sufficient to justify the relief requested; instead, court found appropriate the “compromise” suggested by plaintiff that its own attorneys personally review the computers to ensure that any additional responsive documents that may exist in readable form were produced

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of intellectual property

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

Corporate Healthcare Fin., Inc. v. Breedlove, 2006 WL 2400073 (Md. Cir. Ct. Apr. 19, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff’s motion for expedited, limited discovery relating to the fate of five emails containing proprietary and trade secret information, which were sent by defendant from his business email account to his personal email account before his termination; plaintiff allowed limited access to defendant’s personal email account and hard drive, and would be allowed to depose defendant regarding actions taken with respect to subject emails and attachments

Nature of Case: Breach of employment agreement, misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Emails and attachments, personal computer hard drive

TIG Ins. Co. v. Premier Parks, Inc., 2005 WL 468300 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 1, 2005) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2005

Key Insight: Where insurer, in course of attempting to comply with discovery order, realized it had no electronic mechanism to retrieve case files based on whether a class was certified, but it could sort files by amount expended, court modified discovery order because it would have inflicted a substantial burden upon the insurer and the information produced would almost certainly be irrelevant

Nature of Case: Park operator alleged insurer failed to provide adequate counsel to defend a class action discrimination suit

Electronic Data Involved: Case file data

Advantacare Health Partners, LP v. Access IV, 2005 WL 1398641 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2005) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2005

Key Insight: Court denied individual defendant’s motion for reconsideration of default judgment entered against her and other defendants for continued destruction of evidence and continued possession of plaintiff’s proprietary files; although there was no evidence that individual defendant personally engaged in wrongful acts, she was not insulated by simply leaving compliance with court orders to other defendant; further, individual had numerous opportunities to disavow knowledge of misconduct or detail what efforts she personally took to comply with court orders but never did so

Nature of Case: Misapproriation of trade secrets and related torts

Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary information in electronic form

McCarthy v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., 2005 WL 6157347 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 9, 2005)

Dec 01 2005

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s affidavit in support of motion stated that emails were used routinely in the course of defendants’ business, described defendants? backup process, and asserted that he was able to run a search on Lotus Notes folders he maintained, resulting in production by him to defendants of 5,000 emails, and defendants provided little information except to state that backup tapes were routinely overwritten and that deleted emails could not be recovered, court noted that defendants? efforts to preserve evidence or lack thereof could be an issue in the case and allowed plaintiff to designate IT expert to inspect hard drives and backup media identified in discovery demands; court further directed defendants to provide access, subject to inspection protocol and confidentiality stipulation to be submitted by parties for court approval

Nature of Case: Disability discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drives

Inventory Locator Serv., LLC v. PartsBase, Inc., 2005 WL 6062855 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 19, 2005)

Dec 01 2005

Key Insight: Where there was no evidence that server logs were erased in bad faith and facts suggested that defendant was, at most, merely negligent, since it took reasonable steps to preserve relevant data — it retained and consulted with technical expert; on advice of its expert, it made a copy of the relevant server logs on CDs that could not be overwritten; it stored copies of the data on its server; and it made the data on the server available for inspection by plaintiff prior to the time it was overwritten — and where plaintiff was unable to demonstrate any real prejudice from the loss of some metadata in server logs, magistrate judge found no basis for spoliation sanctions of any kind and recommended denial of plaintiff’s sanctions motion

Nature of Case: Parties asserted claims under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, each arguing that the other had obtained unlawful access to databases

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata; server logs

Bd. of Managers of Atrium Condo. v. West 79th St. Corp., 792 N.Y.S.2d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Dec 01 2005

Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s request for “electronic discovery of plaintiff’s attorneys’ computers” to determine whether affidavit of service of reply brief was backdated

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s counsel’s computers

Tag:Inspection