Inspection – Page 7 – Electronic Discovery Law

MSC Software Corp. v. Altair Eng?g, Inc., 2008 WL 4940361 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 9, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Special Master recommended production of un-redacted source code repository, development ?twiki? and operational versions of programs at issue to experts and plaintiff?s counsel where access to current versions was ?reasonable? before experts drafted reports and where prior orders did not prohibit it; Special Master also recommended in-person confirmation that production included all required information as kept in usual course of business

Nature of Case: Theft of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: source code repository, development “twiki”

Bryant v. Gardner, 587 F. Supp. 2d 951 (N.D. Ill. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to preserve laptop by continued use and by running defragmentation program, court imposed sanction of fees and costs and precluded defendants from making particular arguments that became unverifiable as result of failure to preserve; where forensic examination revealed creation of false evidence on laptop, court ordered accused defendant to show cause why matter should not be referred for prosecution

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

Ford Motor Co. v. Hall-Edwards, 997 So.2d 1148 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where trial court granted plaintiff access to all defendant?s databases, including an exclusively privileged database, based upon an unproven assumption regarding ease of production and upon defendant?s violation of a prior court order by failing to provide sufficient information regarding its search efforts, appellate court quashed order noting that defendant?s violations were correctable and non-prejudicial and thus could not justify invasion of the attorney-client privilege or work product

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Am. Express Co. v. Goetz, 515 F.3d 156 (2nd Cir. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Second Circuit found no error in trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s request to examine in their entirety numerous computer hard drives belonging to Ogilvy and American Express employees and granting the request only to the extent it involved electronic records pertinent to disputed dates of creation of two documents, since plaintiff failed to show any error in district court’s determination that ?such wholesale rummaging? through American Express’s electronic records was not appropriate

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement and misappropriation

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives of employees of American Express and Ogilvy who worked on a particular ad campaign

Opperman v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5071044 (D.N.J. Nov. 24, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs? request for access to third party?s proprietary software where court determined software and its underlying processes were relevant to plaintiffs? claims and that all less intrusive means to obtain the necessary information had been exhausted; court?s order allowed access to the software by plaintiffs? expert but protected the confidentiality of the information with a protective order that placed limitations on who may access the software and limited the use of the information solely to the litigation

Nature of Case: Challenge to accuracy of insurance company estimates for fire damage

Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary software

Gateway Senior Hous., Ltd. v. MMA Fin., Inc., 2008 WL 5142152 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court found that defendant waived attorney-client privilege as to specific emails where defendant failed to establish privileged nature of the communications and where defendant failed to properly identify the emails on a privilege log prior to their inadvertent production; court ordered adverse instruction in favor of plaintiffs as spoliation sanction where defendant failed to produce highly relevant hard drives for inspection and where defendants? proffered explanations for the destruction of those hard drives was contradicted and ?lame? in light of defendants? knowledge of their relevance and its duty to preserve

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails, hard drives

Huthnance v. D.C., 255 F.R.D. 285 (D.D.C. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendants? radio log indicated a relevant communication occurred but where defendants were unable to produce the audio tape, court ordered defendant to produce its document retention policies to show ?whether the [communications] were maintained according to standard procedure?

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged illegal arrest and detention

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tapes of phonecalls, access to

Integrated Serv. Solutions, Inc. v. Rodman, 2008 WL 4791654 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of search ?hits? from non-party?s laptop where agreed upon neutral third party conducted search, where counsel reviewed hits and concluded none were relevant, and where plaintiff provided no showing of bad faith or indicia of unreliability; court offered plaintiff option to request report indicating methods utilized in search, broad description of documents hit, and confirmation of no evidence of wiping

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer files

Autotech Techs. Ltd. P’ship v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., 2008 WL 783301 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where requesting party complained that information generated and produced in response to agreed-upon keyword search of ?Goldmine? database was inadequate and not rectified by index of customer information documents subsequently provided, and that additional information (such as dates) was needed, court ordered parties to confer about how date information could be retrieved and granted motion to compel only to the extent that requesting party?s consultant would be allowed to run his original protocol to determine if date information should have been produced in conformity with that protocol; costs to be borne by requesting party unless it appeared that date information had been wrongly withheld, in which case responding party would bear all of the costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees resulting from nonproduction of the information

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Goldmine customer relations management database

U.S. v. Poulin, 592 F. Supp. 2d 137 (D. Me. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant?s audio consultant identified potential inaccuracies between the audio tapes produced and the original recordings, and where the original recordings were subject to disclosure pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16, court granted plaintiff?s motion for access to the original Exxacom system recordings ?to confirm that the recordings?are faithful reproductions?; acknowledging defendant?s burden in re-production where many hours had already been spent, court observed, ?The Government?s burden is measured in hours; the Defendant?s in years.?

Nature of Case: Criminal production of child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings

Tag:Inspection