Hot Cases
The list below includes cases most frequently viewed by visitors to the Applied Discovery law library.
Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15489 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2010).
Adverse inference sanctions were imposed against six plaintiffs or plaintiff groups in a federal securities action that was stayed and then transferred to the Southern District of New York. Those plaintiffs were grossly negligent in responding to discovery requests because they failed while the stay was in effect to meet standards set by the Southern District Zubulake decisions for preserving electronically stored information.
Adverse inference sanctions were imposed against six plaintiffs or plaintiff groups in a federal securities action that was stayed and then transferred to the Southern District of New York. Those plaintiffs were grossly negligent in responding to discovery requests because they failed while the stay was in effect to meet standards set by the Southern District Zubulake decisions for preserving electronically stored information.
Bellinger v. Astrue, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71727 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2009).
Plaintiff's motion to compel answers to interrogatories concerning the scope of defendant's litigation hold and search for electronically stored information was denied because plaintiff's belief that additional email should exist was an insufficient basis for concluding that defendant had withheld production.
Plaintiff's motion to compel answers to interrogatories concerning the scope of defendant's litigation hold and search for electronically stored information was denied because plaintiff's belief that additional email should exist was an insufficient basis for concluding that defendant had withheld production.
Multiquip, Inc. v. Water Management Systems LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109148 (D. Idaho Nov. 23, 2009).
Attorney-client privilege was not waived under Fed. R. Evid. 502 for an email chain inadvertently disclosed outside of the discovery process.
Attorney-client privilege was not waived under Fed. R. Evid. 502 for an email chain inadvertently disclosed outside of the discovery process.
Oracle USA, Inc. v. SAP AG, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91432 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2009).
A magistrate judge sanctioned plaintiff for delay in supplementing its initial disclosures on damages by precluding plaintiff from presenting any evidence of damages beyond those damages included by plaintiff in its initial disclosures. The magistrate judge also ruled that its preclusion sanction was not a dispositive order that required a report and recommendation to the court.
A magistrate judge sanctioned plaintiff for delay in supplementing its initial disclosures on damages by precluding plaintiff from presenting any evidence of damages beyond those damages included by plaintiff in its initial disclosures. The magistrate judge also ruled that its preclusion sanction was not a dispositive order that required a report and recommendation to the court.
Grider v. Keystone Health Plan Central, Inc., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 19642 (3d Cir. Sept. 1, 2009).
Sanctions requiring defendants and their counsel to pay over $3.2 million of plaintiffs' attorney fees were vacated because the trial court failed to specify, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(3), how defendants' general discovery objections were "without substantial justification."
Sanctions requiring defendants and their counsel to pay over $3.2 million of plaintiffs' attorney fees were vacated because the trial court failed to specify, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(3), how defendants' general discovery objections were "without substantial justification."
Coburn Group, LLC v. Whitecap Advisors LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69188 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 7, 2009).
An email containing work product was inadvertently disclosed within the meaning of Fed. R. Evid. 502(b)(1) because its inclusion in a document production simply was a mistake. Return of the email was ordered because use of experienced paralegals to review documents was reasonable, and counsel promptly sought return of the document once he learned it had been produced inadvertently.
An email containing work product was inadvertently disclosed within the meaning of Fed. R. Evid. 502(b)(1) because its inclusion in a document production simply was a mistake. Return of the email was ordered because use of experienced paralegals to review documents was reasonable, and counsel promptly sought return of the document once he learned it had been produced inadvertently.
KCH Services, Inc. v. Vanaire, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62993 (W.D. Ky. July 21, 2009).
A call from a competitor's president about defendant's use of the competitor's software should have put defendant on notice of future litigation, and defendant's deletion of the software without first giving the competitor an opportunity to inspect led the court to sanction defendant with an adverse inference jury instruction.
A call from a competitor's president about defendant's use of the competitor's software should have put defendant on notice of future litigation, and defendant's deletion of the software without first giving the competitor an opportunity to inspect led the court to sanction defendant with an adverse inference jury instruction.
Kipperman v. Onex Corp., "Kipperman II", 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44457 (N.D. Ga. May 26, 2009).
Although tempted by defendants' discovery abuse to strike defendants' answer, the court instead ordered defendants to reimburse plaintiff $1,022,700 in attorney fees and costs. The court explained that striking defendants' answer could have resulted in the largest default judgment in U.S. history in a case that presented novel issues.
Although tempted by defendants' discovery abuse to strike defendants' answer, the court instead ordered defendants to reimburse plaintiff $1,022,700 in attorney fees and costs. The court explained that striking defendants' answer could have resulted in the largest default judgment in U.S. history in a case that presented novel issues.
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Schroeder, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39378 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2009).
A motion to compel production of internal notes and draft memoranda of a non-party law firm generated during preparation of a special committee report on a company’s stock option practices was denied. The law firm documents had not been disclosed outside the law firm, and the defendant executive in the stock option backdating case did not demonstrate that the law firm materials were crucial to his defense.
A motion to compel production of internal notes and draft memoranda of a non-party law firm generated during preparation of a special committee report on a company’s stock option practices was denied. The law firm documents had not been disclosed outside the law firm, and the defendant executive in the stock option backdating case did not demonstrate that the law firm materials were crucial to his defense.
William A. Gross Construction Associates, Inc. v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22903 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2009).
The court issued a “wake-up call” to lawyers in the Southern District of New York “about the need for careful thought, quality control, testing, and cooperation with opposing counsel in designing search terms or ‘keywords’ to be used to produce emails or other electronically stored information.”
The court issued a “wake-up call” to lawyers in the Southern District of New York “about the need for careful thought, quality control, testing, and cooperation with opposing counsel in designing search terms or ‘keywords’ to be used to produce emails or other electronically stored information.”
Independent Newspapers, Inc. v. Brodie, 2009 Md. LEXIS 18 (Md. Feb. 27, 2009).
In a case of first impression, Maryland’s highest court set a process by which a plaintiff in a defamation action could obtain the identity of anonymous posters of allegedly defamatory statements on an Internet message board.
In a case of first impression, Maryland’s highest court set a process by which a plaintiff in a defamation action could obtain the identity of anonymous posters of allegedly defamatory statements on an Internet message board.
Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd. v. King, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12940 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2009).
Cigarette manufacturer defendants in private litigation did not have to produce commercially sensitive data compiled at high cost for submission to the government. The partial relevance of the data to one of plaintiff’s claims was outweighed by the manufacturers’ strong interest in protecting the materials.
Cigarette manufacturer defendants in private litigation did not have to produce commercially sensitive data compiled at high cost for submission to the government. The partial relevance of the data to one of plaintiff’s claims was outweighed by the manufacturers’ strong interest in protecting the materials.
SEC v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3367 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2009).
The SEC was ordered to supplement its production of 1.7 million documents from 36 databases with production or identification of documents organized according to defendant’s request for production of documents supporting allegations of the SEC’s complaint. A government agency that initiated litigation had to follow the same discovery rules that governed private parties, and it was “patently inequitable to require a party to search ten million pages to find documents already identified by its adversary as supporting the allegations of a complaint.”
The SEC was ordered to supplement its production of 1.7 million documents from 36 databases with production or identification of documents organized according to defendant’s request for production of documents supporting allegations of the SEC’s complaint. A government agency that initiated litigation had to follow the same discovery rules that governed private parties, and it was “patently inequitable to require a party to search ten million pages to find documents already identified by its adversary as supporting the allegations of a complaint.”
Cintas Corp. No. 2 v. Transcontinental Granite, Inc., 2008 Va. Cir. LEXIS 153 (Va. Cir. Ct. Oct. 27, 2008).
Under a Virginia rule with operative language identical to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3), the court held that work product protection for a document applied to documents prepared in anticipation of any litigation rather than in anticipation only of the litigation in which the work product protection was asserted.
Under a Virginia rule with operative language identical to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3), the court held that work product protection for a document applied to documents prepared in anticipation of any litigation rather than in anticipation only of the litigation in which the work product protection was asserted.
Rhoads Industries, Inc. v. Building Materials Corp. of America, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93333 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 14, 2008).
Inadvertently disclosed privileged documents not promptly listed on a log pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) did not have to be returned to plaintiff. However, under recently-enacted Fed. R. Evid. 502, plaintiff was entitled to return of inadvertently produced but promptly logged privileged documents. While plaintiff should have been better prepared for privilege review, return of the privileged documents to plaintiff was in the interest of justice and defendant had not met its burden of proof in showing any prejudice from having to return the documents.
Inadvertently disclosed privileged documents not promptly listed on a log pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) did not have to be returned to plaintiff. However, under recently-enacted Fed. R. Evid. 502, plaintiff was entitled to return of inadvertently produced but promptly logged privileged documents. While plaintiff should have been better prepared for privilege review, return of the privileged documents to plaintiff was in the interest of justice and defendant had not met its burden of proof in showing any prejudice from having to return the documents.
Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 12766 (9th Cir. June 18, 2008).
A text message service provider that retained copies of text messages in electronic storage violated the Stored Communications Act when it provided a subscriber with a transcript of text messages to and from an employee of the subscriber. Also, the subscriber violated Fourth Amendment privacy rights of its employees by reviewing their text messages without first obtaining their consent.
A text message service provider that retained copies of text messages in electronic storage violated the Stored Communications Act when it provided a subscriber with a transcript of text messages to and from an employee of the subscriber. Also, the subscriber violated Fourth Amendment privacy rights of its employees by reviewing their text messages without first obtaining their consent.
Treppel v. Biovail Corp., "Treppel II", 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25867 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2008).
Following completion of discovery, defendants were found to have failed to preserve electronic data properly and were ordered to restore additional backup tapes and to pay for forensic examination of a chief executive officer’s laptop.
Following completion of discovery, defendants were found to have failed to preserve electronic data properly and were ordered to restore additional backup tapes and to pay for forensic examination of a chief executive officer’s laptop.
D'Onofrio v. Sfx Sports Group, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4252 (D.D.C. Jan. 23, 2008).
A request for production of documents with language traditionally used to refer to paper files could not be read to require production of electronic files in their original electronic form with metadata because the request did not specify the form of production of electronic data as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b).
A request for production of documents with language traditionally used to refer to paper files could not be read to require production of electronic files in their original electronic form with metadata because the request did not specify the form of production of electronic data as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b).
Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Bunnell, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63620 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2007).
Data stored temporarily in a computer's random access memory is discoverable "electronically stored information" within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.
Data stored temporarily in a computer's random access memory is discoverable "electronically stored information" within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.
Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42025 (D. Md. May 29, 2008).
Defendants who inadvertently disclosed electronically stored information during discovery waived attorney-client privilege and work product protection for the information. Defendants failed to pursue a “clawback agreement” and when their privilege log was challenged, they failed to demonstrate for the court that their search and information retrieval process was adequately designed to screen out privileged or protected information.
Defendants who inadvertently disclosed electronically stored information during discovery waived attorney-client privilege and work product protection for the information. Defendants failed to pursue a “clawback agreement” and when their privilege log was challenged, they failed to demonstrate for the court that their search and information retrieval process was adequately designed to screen out privileged or protected information.
Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57136 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2007).
Plaintiff's and their counsels "aggravated litigation abuse" in patent infringement litigation led the court to hold two patents "totally unenforceable."
Plaintiff's and their counsels "aggravated litigation abuse" in patent infringement litigation led the court to hold two patents "totally unenforceable."
