View by Topic
Duties Respecting Electronic Evidence > Disclosure
David v. Signal International, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78171 (E.D. La. July 6, 2010).
Plaintiffs were ordered to cull out about 3,000 documents produced by defendant that plaintiffs contended were over-redacted, and defendant was ordered to verify that the documents were properly redacted to remove personally identifying information. The court concluded that the "only solution" to claims of over-redaction "given the massive scope of the production" was "an equitable one."
Plaintiffs were ordered to cull out about 3,000 documents produced by defendant that plaintiffs contended were over-redacted, and defendant was ordered to verify that the documents were properly redacted to remove personally identifying information. The court concluded that the "only solution" to claims of over-redaction "given the massive scope of the production" was "an equitable one."
Storozynski v. AmerLink Construction Co. (In re AmerLink, Ltd.), 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 1533 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. May 4, 2010).
A defendant obtained postponement of his deposition until after plaintiffs produced e-mail and taped conversations of the defendants. The substantive value of the evidence sought to be discovered by the defendant outweighed the impeachment value of the evidence at the defendant's deposition.
A defendant obtained postponement of his deposition until after plaintiffs produced e-mail and taped conversations of the defendants. The substantive value of the evidence sought to be discovered by the defendant outweighed the impeachment value of the evidence at the defendant's deposition.
Ferron v. Subscriberbase Holdings, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34414 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 22, 2010).
An attorney who sought damages following email solicitations to him from defendants was ordered to provide defendants with the Internet Protocol address used by his office and with information about his participation in similar cases.
An attorney who sought damages following email solicitations to him from defendants was ordered to provide defendants with the Internet Protocol address used by his office and with information about his participation in similar cases.
Adhiparasakthi Charitable, Medical, Educational, and Cultural Society of North America v. Township of West Pikeland, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25542 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 16, 2010).
Defendant's e-discovery expert was given access to plaintiff's computers to determine whether responsive information was still available on hard drives or servers. Plaintiff had stated that to the extent responsive email existed but had not been produced already, it had been deleted in the ordinary course of business and could not be produced.
Defendant's e-discovery expert was given access to plaintiff's computers to determine whether responsive information was still available on hard drives or servers. Plaintiff had stated that to the extent responsive email existed but had not been produced already, it had been deleted in the ordinary course of business and could not be produced.
Hamilton v. First America Title Insurance Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21157 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2010).
Although briefing on class certification was complete, plaintiffs were entitled to further production of information relevant to class certification because the issue of class certification remained open throughout class litigation.
Although briefing on class certification was complete, plaintiffs were entitled to further production of information relevant to class certification because the issue of class certification remained open throughout class litigation.
Fields v. Lemmon, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6214 (S.D. W. Va. Jan. 26, 2010).
Although plaintiffs that put their medical condition in issue had to produce medical records in their possession, the court had no authority to order them to sign medical record releases allowing medical providers to transmit records directly to defendants.
Although plaintiffs that put their medical condition in issue had to produce medical records in their possession, the court had no authority to order them to sign medical record releases allowing medical providers to transmit records directly to defendants.
Lake v. City of Phoenix, “Lake II”, 2009 Ariz. LEXIS 257 (Ariz. Oct. 29, 2009).
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that metadata within Arizona public records maintained in electronic format was subject to disclosure under Arizona's public records laws.
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that metadata within Arizona public records maintained in electronic format was subject to disclosure under Arizona's public records laws.
Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment (Shanghai) Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103759 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2009).
An email by plaintiff's chief executive officer was properly designated as confidential information within the meaning of a protective order and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G), given the court's broad latitude to grant protective orders and defendant's plan to use the email to encourage a government investigation and additional lawsuits against plaintiff.
An email by plaintiff's chief executive officer was properly designated as confidential information within the meaning of a protective order and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G), given the court's broad latitude to grant protective orders and defendant's plan to use the email to encourage a government investigation and additional lawsuits against plaintiff.
Brooks v. Frattaroll, 2009 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 148 (Pa. County Ct. Oct.5, 2009).
In a matter of first impression, a Pennsylvania state court considering plaintiff's request to allow expert examination of defendant's computers provided factors to consider in balancing "potential usefulness and abusiveness" of the discovery. The court granted defendant's request for a protective order but invited plaintiff to make "a more focused" discovery request "founded upon more clearly identified justification."
In a matter of first impression, a Pennsylvania state court considering plaintiff's request to allow expert examination of defendant's computers provided factors to consider in balancing "potential usefulness and abusiveness" of the discovery. The court granted defendant's request for a protective order but invited plaintiff to make "a more focused" discovery request "founded upon more clearly identified justification."
Dawe v. Corrections USA, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96461 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2009).
A third-party plaintiff was ordered to produce his personal computer to defendants for inspection at defendants' initial cost because contention and distrust permeated the litigation, the plaintiff refused to permit even a limited inspection, and the computer of another plaintiff, according to defendants, had been "forensically cleaned" prior to defendants' inspection.
A third-party plaintiff was ordered to produce his personal computer to defendants for inspection at defendants' initial cost because contention and distrust permeated the litigation, the plaintiff refused to permit even a limited inspection, and the computer of another plaintiff, according to defendants, had been "forensically cleaned" prior to defendants' inspection.
Beall v. Tyler Technologies, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87447 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 22, 2009).
A court order requiring defendant to produce "email addresses, where available" required production of any email addresses, including workplace email addresses provided by defendant to its employees, where plaintiffs could contact potential class members.
A court order requiring defendant to produce "email addresses, where available" required production of any email addresses, including workplace email addresses provided by defendant to its employees, where plaintiffs could contact potential class members.
Wixon v. Wyndham Resort Development Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86337 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2009).
Defendant's "overly narrow and hyper-technical reading" of an agreement with plaintiffs to limit pre-class certification discovery led the court to sanction defendant by refusing to consider the sur-rebuttal report of defendant's expert on class certification issues.
Defendant's "overly narrow and hyper-technical reading" of an agreement with plaintiffs to limit pre-class certification discovery led the court to sanction defendant by refusing to consider the sur-rebuttal report of defendant's expert on class certification issues.
Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane County v. County of Spokane, 2009 Wash. App. LEXIS 1986 (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2009).
A County violated Washington's public records act by failing to search the prior computer of an employee who created a key document in order to determine when the document was created. Evidence showed that the computer was "rebuilt" and given to another County employee almost three months after the County received the request for the document that was on the computer.
A County violated Washington's public records act by failing to search the prior computer of an employee who created a key document in order to determine when the document was created. Evidence showed that the computer was "rebuilt" and given to another County employee almost three months after the County received the request for the document that was on the computer.
Kravetz v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51230 (D. Ariz. June 10, 2009).
Plaintiff, who filed a disability claim, was ordered to produce his computer hard drives to an insurer for inspection, but the inspection was limited to searching for metadata that would indicate the amount of typing plaintiff did each day.
Plaintiff, who filed a disability claim, was ordered to produce his computer hard drives to an insurer for inspection, but the inspection was limited to searching for metadata that would indicate the amount of typing plaintiff did each day.
McGarry v. Becher, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40879 (S.D. Ind. May 13, 2009).
Production of a printout or other download of current memories of tasers used at a county jail was ordered. Plaintiff contended there had been excessive use of the tasers, and the memories would show tests and other uses of the tasers over the previous six to eight months.
Production of a printout or other download of current memories of tasers used at a county jail was ordered. Plaintiff contended there had been excessive use of the tasers, and the memories would show tests and other uses of the tasers over the previous six to eight months.
United States v. Jack, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 43120 (E.D. Cal. May 9, 2009).
Based upon the government’s assurance that no communications were intercepted by the National Security Agency or other government agency involving defendants charged with conspiring to overthrow a foreign government, the court denied defendants’ request for an order requiring production of such interceptions or of an affidavit describing the nature of the search performed by the government and verifying that no responsive documents existed.
Based upon the government’s assurance that no communications were intercepted by the National Security Agency or other government agency involving defendants charged with conspiring to overthrow a foreign government, the court denied defendants’ request for an order requiring production of such interceptions or of an affidavit describing the nature of the search performed by the government and verifying that no responsive documents existed.
Matter of Hearst Corp. v. State, 2009 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 868 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009).
New York State officials were ordered to produce spreadsheets of payroll records constructed to omit social security numbers in response to a Freedom of Information Law request that sought payroll records and related metadata.
New York State officials were ordered to produce spreadsheets of payroll records constructed to omit social security numbers in response to a Freedom of Information Law request that sought payroll records and related metadata.
Newman v. Borders, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29020 (D.D.C. Apr. 6, 2009).
Rather than order a second deposition of a representative of defendant to obtain more knowledgeable testimony on defendant’s retention of email, the court directed defendant to file an affidavit with responses to specific questions posed by the court.
Rather than order a second deposition of a representative of defendant to obtain more knowledgeable testimony on defendant’s retention of email, the court directed defendant to file an affidavit with responses to specific questions posed by the court.
State v. Rivas, "Rivas II", 2009 Ohio LEXIS 861 (Ohio Mar. 31, 2009).
The prosecution could not be ordered to provide a mirror image of a police hard drive from which the prosecution provided a transcript of evidence unless the defendant first made a prima facie showing that the information in the transcript was false, incomplete, adulterated, or spoliated.
The prosecution could not be ordered to provide a mirror image of a police hard drive from which the prosecution provided a transcript of evidence unless the defendant first made a prima facie showing that the information in the transcript was false, incomplete, adulterated, or spoliated.
State v. Dingman, 2009 Wash. App. LEXIS 550 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2009).
Defendant’s conviction for theft and money laundering was reversed because the trial court denied his motion to have the State turn over for inspection computers seized from defendant or mirror images of the computers in a program that defense counsel had rather than in the program used by the State.
Defendant’s conviction for theft and money laundering was reversed because the trial court denied his motion to have the State turn over for inspection computers seized from defendant or mirror images of the computers in a program that defense counsel had rather than in the program used by the State.
In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Boucher), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13006 (D. Vt. Feb. 19, 2009).
The target of a grand jury investigation was ordered to produce an unencrypted copy of his laptop computer drive to the grand jury. The target had lost his Fifth Amendment protection when he opened the drive during a border stop to allow an agent to see files with possibly incriminating information.
The target of a grand jury investigation was ordered to produce an unencrypted copy of his laptop computer drive to the grand jury. The target had lost his Fifth Amendment protection when he opened the drive during a border stop to allow an agent to see files with possibly incriminating information.
Lake v. City of Phoenix, 2009 Ariz. App. LEXIS 10 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2009).
Public records in Arizona included computerized notes of a supervisor in a police department but not the metadata underlying those notes that would verify when the records were created.
Public records in Arizona included computerized notes of a supervisor in a police department but not the metadata underlying those notes that would verify when the records were created.
Containment Technologies Group, Inc. v. American Society of Health System Pharmacists, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80688 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 10, 2008).
A protective order was approved allowing designations of entire documents produced in discovery as “confidential” even if only portions of the documents contained information to be protected. Recently-enacted Fed. R. Evid. 502 expressed a cost-benefit approach to waivers of privilege when dealing with the enormous volume of documents in electronic discovery, and a similar approach led the court to hold that more precise designations of confidentiality were only necessary for the relatively few documents filed in court.
A protective order was approved allowing designations of entire documents produced in discovery as “confidential” even if only portions of the documents contained information to be protected. Recently-enacted Fed. R. Evid. 502 expressed a cost-benefit approach to waivers of privilege when dealing with the enormous volume of documents in electronic discovery, and a similar approach led the court to hold that more precise designations of confidentiality were only necessary for the relatively few documents filed in court.
Temploy, Inc. v. Companion Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78572 (S.D. Ala. Oct. 6, 2008).
Although plaintiff had conceded its contract claim against defendant, the court reopened discovery because defendant after the close of discovery produced an email string in which defendant’s employee raised questions about defendant’s performance under the contract.
Although plaintiff had conceded its contract claim against defendant, the court reopened discovery because defendant after the close of discovery produced an email string in which defendant’s employee raised questions about defendant’s performance under the contract.
FTC v. Lane-Labs, USA, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64776 (D.N.J. Aug. 25, 2008).
An expert’s email to counsel providing thoughts on the report of the opposing side’s expert did not have to be disclosed to the opposing side pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) because the email was written over a year after the expert had produced his own report and could not have been considered in connection with his opinion in his report.
An expert’s email to counsel providing thoughts on the report of the opposing side’s expert did not have to be disclosed to the opposing side pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) because the email was written over a year after the expert had produced his own report and could not have been considered in connection with his opinion in his report.
United States v. Barlow, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59105 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2008).
The government was ordered to produce post-report email of its expert witnesses after the court rejected the contention that the experts could compartmentalize information they received after preparing their reports in order not to rely on that information in giving their expert testimony at trial.
The government was ordered to produce post-report email of its expert witnesses after the court rejected the contention that the experts could compartmentalize information they received after preparing their reports in order not to rely on that information in giving their expert testimony at trial.
Oracle Corp. v. SAP AG, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88330 (N.D. Cal. July 3, 2008).
Defendants were ordered to provide plaintiffs with documents that defendants had provided to a grand jury, except for documents already otherwise produced to plaintiffs and except for wholly irrelevant email such as personal employee email.
Defendants were ordered to provide plaintiffs with documents that defendants had provided to a grand jury, except for documents already otherwise produced to plaintiffs and except for wholly irrelevant email such as personal employee email.
United States v. Painting, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49171 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2008).
Assertions of law enforcement privilege for government email were rejected by the court. Agency heads had not made an official claim of privilege, and an unofficial claim of law enforcement privilege by government counsel did not meet the requirement that the privilege had to be asserted by executive level officials of the department having control over the email.
Assertions of law enforcement privilege for government email were rejected by the court. Agency heads had not made an official claim of privilege, and an unofficial claim of law enforcement privilege by government counsel did not meet the requirement that the privilege had to be asserted by executive level officials of the department having control over the email.
Brown v. Chertoff, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39569 (S.D. Ga. May 14, 2008).
A plaintiff’s discovery definitions in a prior administrative proceeding that did not include electronically stored information had no significance in a subsequent federal court action in which Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 requests for production of documents were understood to include electronically stored information.
A plaintiff’s discovery definitions in a prior administrative proceeding that did not include electronically stored information had no significance in a subsequent federal court action in which Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 requests for production of documents were understood to include electronically stored information.
Alexander v. FBI, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27153 (D.D.C. Apr. 3, 2008).
Errors by the White House Counsel’s office in failing to appreciate the significance of information provided by their computer expert “occurred long before development of current sophisticated ways that lawyers have had to learn to deal with computer experts,” and failure to disclose that not all White House email had been captured and retained in a searchable system was not evidence of obstruction of justice or of deliberately providing false information to the court.
Errors by the White House Counsel’s office in failing to appreciate the significance of information provided by their computer expert “occurred long before development of current sophisticated ways that lawyers have had to learn to deal with computer experts,” and failure to disclose that not all White House email had been captured and retained in a searchable system was not evidence of obstruction of justice or of deliberately providing false information to the court.
BNSF Railway Co. v. Town of Vinton, 2008 La. App. LEXIS 348 (La. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2008).
Printouts from a database and email documents that related to safety enhancement at a railroad crossing were privileged under 23 U.S.C.S. § 409.
Printouts from a database and email documents that related to safety enhancement at a railroad crossing were privileged under 23 U.S.C.S. § 409.
Baird v. Department of the Army, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 4070 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 26, 2008).
An administrative board's decision was remanded because discovery in the middle of the administrative hearing should have been allowed for email that the government failed to provide earlier pursuant to 5 C.F.R. õ 1201.73(c)(1).
An administrative board's decision was remanded because discovery in the middle of the administrative hearing should have been allowed for email that the government failed to provide earlier pursuant to 5 C.F.R. õ 1201.73(c)(1).
Kellogg v. Nike, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95629 (D. Neb. Dec. 26, 2007).
Disclosure by defendants at a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of their policy for retention of electronic documents led the court to deny plaintiff's request for further disclosure pursuant to Rule 26(f)(3) of responsive information concerning electronically stored information.
Disclosure by defendants at a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of their policy for retention of electronic documents led the court to deny plaintiff's request for further disclosure pursuant to Rule 26(f)(3) of responsive information concerning electronically stored information.
Garcia v. Berkshire Life Insurance Company of America, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86639 (D. Colo. Nov. 13, 2007).
Plaintiff's counsel was obligated to seek computer-knowledgeable assistance to learn the true contents of a DVD containing plaintiff's email once defense counsel pointed out that over 4,000 email documents on the DVD had not been included in plaintiff's hard copy production.
Plaintiff's counsel was obligated to seek computer-knowledgeable assistance to learn the true contents of a DVD containing plaintiff's email once defense counsel pointed out that over 4,000 email documents on the DVD had not been included in plaintiff's hard copy production.
Warshak v. United States, "Warshak I", 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 14297 (6th Cir. June 18, 2007).
Using an internet service provider to send and receive email did not lessen individuals' privacy expectations for their email, according to a court of appeals. The government was prohibited from seizing contents of personal email accounts from internet service providers without first giving notice to the email account holder or showing with specific facts that the account holder had no expectation of privacy in the contents of the account.
Using an internet service provider to send and receive email did not lessen individuals' privacy expectations for their email, according to a court of appeals. The government was prohibited from seizing contents of personal email accounts from internet service providers without first giving notice to the email account holder or showing with specific facts that the account holder had no expectation of privacy in the contents of the account.
Williams v. Armstrong, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35045 (W.D. Mich. May 14, 2007).
A magistrate judge's order denying a motion to compel production of email by a corrections official who denied having any responsive email was remanded for further consideration. An email exhibit to plaintiff's motion to compel suggested that the corrections official may have had responsive email on his workstation computer.
A magistrate judge's order denying a motion to compel production of email by a corrections official who denied having any responsive email was remanded for further consideration. An email exhibit to plaintiff's motion to compel suggested that the corrections official may have had responsive email on his workstation computer.
Horowitch v. Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29626 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2007).
A defendant who responded that its electronic records were located at an address where it had access to the records was ordered to immediately provide plaintiff with information relating to electronic discovery issues and to confer with plaintiff while accompanied by persons capable of answering all technical questions regarding electronic discovery.
A defendant who responded that its electronic records were located at an address where it had access to the records was ordered to immediately provide plaintiff with information relating to electronic discovery issues and to confer with plaintiff while accompanied by persons capable of answering all technical questions regarding electronic discovery.
Heartland Surgical Specialty Hospital, LLC v. Midwest Division, Inc., "Heartland II", 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26552 (D. Kan. Apr. 9, 2007).
Plaintiff failed to provide an adequately prepared Rule 30(b)(6) witness with knowledge of plaintiff's production of data when it produced its chief executive officer. The CEO could not answer questions about computer servers, document retention policies, and plaintiff's ediscovery vendor.
Plaintiff failed to provide an adequately prepared Rule 30(b)(6) witness with knowledge of plaintiff's production of data when it produced its chief executive officer. The CEO could not answer questions about computer servers, document retention policies, and plaintiff's ediscovery vendor.
Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4343 (W.D. La. Jan. 22, 2007).
A laptop computer provided to plaintiff's former employee by plaintiff's competitor two years after the employee left plaintiff was ordered turned over for inspection by plaintiff. The former employee was also ordered to turn over a personal computer hard drive for inspection. The court agreed with plaintiff that the laptop and the hard drive were the most likely places to find data "pilfered" from plaintiff.
A laptop computer provided to plaintiff's former employee by plaintiff's competitor two years after the employee left plaintiff was ordered turned over for inspection by plaintiff. The former employee was also ordered to turn over a personal computer hard drive for inspection. The court agreed with plaintiff that the laptop and the hard drive were the most likely places to find data "pilfered" from plaintiff.
Mackelprang v. Fidelity National Title Agency of Nevada, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2379 (D. Nev. Jan. 9, 2007).
Defendant's motion to compel plaintiff to consent to a service provider's release of email communications in two accounts attributed to plaintiff was denied.
Defendant's motion to compel plaintiff to consent to a service provider's release of email communications in two accounts attributed to plaintiff was denied.
Exact Software North America, Inc. v. Infocon, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87837 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 5, 2006).
A party's difficulty in producing e-discovery due to "defects" in key search words from the opposing party was not a valid excuse for failing to respond to the discovery. Clarification of the key words should have been sought.
A party's difficulty in producing e-discovery due to "defects" in key search words from the opposing party was not a valid excuse for failing to respond to the discovery. Clarification of the key words should have been sought.
Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Arellanes, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78399 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 27, 2006).
In response to defendant's suggestion, the court ordered appointment of a neutral computer forensics expert to inspect and copy the hard drive on defendant's computer in order to protect privacy of matters unrelated to the lawsuit.
In response to defendant's suggestion, the court ordered appointment of a neutral computer forensics expert to inspect and copy the hard drive on defendant's computer in order to protect privacy of matters unrelated to the lawsuit.
People v. Rutter, 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1609 (Cal. App. Oct. 16, 2006).
Defendant's perjury conviction was upheld despite his not being provided with a report from a computer consultant for the prosecution until the Friday before a Tuesday trial date. The report on contents of defendant's computers was given to defendant on the day after the prosecution received it, and defendant had access to his computers for the prior two years.
Defendant's perjury conviction was upheld despite his not being provided with a report from a computer consultant for the prosecution until the Friday before a Tuesday trial date. The report on contents of defendant's computers was given to defendant on the day after the prosecution received it, and defendant had access to his computers for the prior two years.
University of Pittsburgh v. Townsend, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72523 (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 4, 2006).
Email and other communications of plaintiff's testifying expert to and from counsel had to be disclosed due to the bright line rule of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 even though defendants had objected similarly to plaintiff to disclosing communications of their testifying expert.
Email and other communications of plaintiff's testifying expert to and from counsel had to be disclosed due to the bright line rule of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 even though defendants had objected similarly to plaintiff to disclosing communications of their testifying expert.
United States v. Arnold, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73311 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2006).
While it was appropriate to x-ray or turn on a traveler's laptop or other device at a customs checkpoint, a search of information on the computer without reasonable suspicion was impermissible under the Fourth Amendment.
While it was appropriate to x-ray or turn on a traveler's laptop or other device at a customs checkpoint, a search of information on the computer without reasonable suspicion was impermissible under the Fourth Amendment.
Krumwiede v. Brighton Associates, L.L.C.,, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70535 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 12, 2006).
Use of documents from plaintiff's laptop by defendant as exhibits in a separate arbitration proceeding did not violate a protective order because plaintiff had not properly designated the documents as confidential and thus had waived the ability to claim the documents were covered by the protective order.
Use of documents from plaintiff's laptop by defendant as exhibits in a separate arbitration proceeding did not violate a protective order because plaintiff had not properly designated the documents as confidential and thus had waived the ability to claim the documents were covered by the protective order.
United States v. Romm, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 18474 (9th Cir. Jul. 24, 2006).
A search of the hard drive on defendant's laptop for deleted illegal photographs was permissible without a warrant or probable cause under the border search doctrine. Defendant's argument that the search intruded too much on his First Amendment rights to be considered a "routine" border search was not considered by the court because defendant raised the argument for the first time in his reply brief.
A search of the hard drive on defendant's laptop for deleted illegal photographs was permissible without a warrant or probable cause under the border search doctrine. Defendant's argument that the search intruded too much on his First Amendment rights to be considered a "routine" border search was not considered by the court because defendant raised the argument for the first time in his reply brief.
Petersen v. Union Pacific R.R., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49921 (C.D. Ill. Jul. 21, 2006).
A copy of a railroad's document retention and destruction policy as it existed before and after an accident was "clearly relevant" and had to be produced.
A copy of a railroad's document retention and destruction policy as it existed before and after an accident was "clearly relevant" and had to be produced.
Warner Bros. Records, Inc. v. Souther, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42249 (W.D.N.C. Jun. 1, 2006).
A defendant who claimed she authorized no one to use her computer to download copyrighted music was ordered to identify all persons who may have used her computer, and as to minors who may have used the computer, to identify their parents.
A defendant who claimed she authorized no one to use her computer to download copyrighted music was ordered to identify all persons who may have used her computer, and as to minors who may have used the computer, to identify their parents.
Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Department of Defense, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57319 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2006).
In a Freedom of Information Act suit, Government agencies were ordered to release all segregable factual information contained in email withheld by the agencies pursuant to the deliberative process privilege of FOIA Exemption 5.
In a Freedom of Information Act suit, Government agencies were ordered to release all segregable factual information contained in email withheld by the agencies pursuant to the deliberative process privilege of FOIA Exemption 5.
Bryant v. Jones, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12542 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 10, 2006).
In an employment discrimination case, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for sanctions against defendants for not revealing their ability to retrieve and summarize county-wide employee demographic information. The information would have supported plaintiffs' request to expand discovery, but plaintiffs did not raise the issue at a hearing on discovery issues and no order to provide discovery had been entered and in turn violated by defendants.
In an employment discrimination case, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for sanctions against defendants for not revealing their ability to retrieve and summarize county-wide employee demographic information. The information would have supported plaintiffs' request to expand discovery, but plaintiffs did not raise the issue at a hearing on discovery issues and no order to provide discovery had been entered and in turn violated by defendants.
Leviton Manufacturing Co. v. Nicor, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27655 (D. N.M. Jan. 6, 2006).
A Chinese company was ordered to provide access to its computers for inspection by Leviton following a demonstration by Leviton that assertions by the Chinese company and its counsel that all information requested had been produced were not accurate.
A Chinese company was ordered to provide access to its computers for inspection by Leviton following a demonstration by Leviton that assertions by the Chinese company and its counsel that all information requested had been produced were not accurate.
Menke v. Broward County School Board, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 15291 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2005).
An administrative law judge's order granting access for a school board's expert to inspect all computers in the home of a suspended high school teacher was quashed. The order prevented assertion of the teacher's privilege against self-incrimination and of the rights of privacy of the teacher and others within his household.
An administrative law judge's order granting access for a school board's expert to inspect all computers in the home of a suspended high school teacher was quashed. The order prevented assertion of the teacher's privilege against self-incrimination and of the rights of privacy of the teacher and others within his household.
The Public Relations Society of America, Inc. v. Road Runner High Speed Online, 2005 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1155 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 27, 2005).
Where an association failed to show that an allegedly defamatory e-mail was published to anyone outside of its board members, it failed to establish a legitimate defamation claim and accordingly, a special proceeding seeking pre-action disclosure was denied.
Where an association failed to show that an allegedly defamatory e-mail was published to anyone outside of its board members, it failed to establish a legitimate defamation claim and accordingly, a special proceeding seeking pre-action disclosure was denied.
United States v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C., 2005 WL 273030 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2005).
Court granted plaintiffs' motion to modify case management order and to establish discovery deadlines due to defendants' disclosure of incomplete and defective electronic data.
Court granted plaintiffs' motion to modify case management order and to establish discovery deadlines due to defendants' disclosure of incomplete and defective electronic data.
Positive Software Solutions, Inc. v. New Century Mortgage Corp.,, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19350 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2004).
A mortgage company that continued to use backup copies of licensed software violated a court's protective order designed to protect confidential information while an action against the company was pending. However, the court held that it could not hold the mortgage company in contempt because the protective order was not sufficiently clear and definite.
A mortgage company that continued to use backup copies of licensed software violated a court's protective order designed to protect confidential information while an action against the company was pending. However, the court held that it could not hold the mortgage company in contempt because the protective order was not sufficiently clear and definite.
Sondker v. Philips Electronics North America, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14477 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 27, 2004).
The court denied a motion to strike hard copies of email attachments to an opposition to a summary judgment motion. Although the attachments had been asked for in a letter from opposing counsel seeking all attachments being used as evidence, that letter did not meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2) and a local rule that a party must first attempt to resolve the issue before filing a motion to strike.
The court denied a motion to strike hard copies of email attachments to an opposition to a summary judgment motion. Although the attachments had been asked for in a letter from opposing counsel seeking all attachments being used as evidence, that letter did not meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2) and a local rule that a party must first attempt to resolve the issue before filing a motion to strike.
Fresenius Medical Care Holding, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc., 224 F.R.D. 644 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2004).
A party's response that it had produced all documents that it deemed relevant was insufficient, and the party was ordered to produce all non-privileged documents or certify that it had produced all such documents.
A party's response that it had produced all documents that it deemed relevant was insufficient, and the party was ordered to produce all non-privileged documents or certify that it had produced all such documents.
Taylor v. State, 93 S.W.3d 487 (Tex. App. 2002).
Defendant's conviction for possession of nine photographs found on his computer's hard drive and alleged to be child pornography was reversed because the State formatted defendant's drive during the copying process and destroyed its file allocation structure. The State then placed the copy on a drive that the State had used in prior pornography prosecutions but had not wiped clean before the copying.
Defendant's conviction for possession of nine photographs found on his computer's hard drive and alleged to be child pornography was reversed because the State formatted defendant's drive during the copying process and destroyed its file allocation structure. The State then placed the copy on a drive that the State had used in prior pornography prosecutions but had not wiped clean before the copying.
GTFM, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16244 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2000).
Defendant sanctioned for failure to make accurate disclosure of its computer system capabilities.
Defendant sanctioned for failure to make accurate disclosure of its computer system capabilities.
American Bankers Ins. Co. v. Caruth, 786 S.W.2d 427, 1990 Tex. App. LEXIS 791 (Tex. App. Dallas Feb. 2, 1990).
Affirms default judgment for misrepresentations about computer database capability and failure to respond to discovery requests.
Affirms default judgment for misrepresentations about computer database capability and failure to respond to discovery requests.
