June 12, 2011
Citation: Jannx Medical Systems, Inc. v. Methodist Hospitals, Inc., 2010 WL 4789275 (N.D. Ind., Nov. 17, 2010)
Employee/Employer Implicated: Outside Counsel, In-house Counsel, Senior Management, information technology manager
e-Lesson Learned: Discoverable data must be produced in a reasonably usable form in which it is ordinarily maintained and not in a format more difficult for the requesting party to use in litigation.
Not only was Jannx scolded by the District Court on three separate issues, they are now responsible for significant legal fees, and lost a motion to protect their own data. It’s safe to say the Indiana District Court was not impressed with the Jannx legal team.
Basically, this case involves a dispute over pre-trial discovery motions between the plaintiff, Jannx Medical Systems and defendants, Methodist Hospital, Crothall Healthcare, Inc., and Propoco Professional Services. The Court issued an opinion and order on Defendant’s motion to get Jannx to comply with electronic discovery and Jannx’s motion to withhold electronic data from discovery by reason of trade secrets, etc. Continue reading »
No Comments » |
More...
|
Permalink
Tagged as: Accessibility, Chain of Custody, Computer Forensics Protocols, Cost Sharing & Shifting, Good Faith, Legal Hold/Preservation, Metadata, Procedure, Production of Data, Sanctions, Spoliation, Work-Product Doctrine
View more articles implicating: In-House Counsel, Information Technology Professionals, Outside Counsel, Upper Management
June 4, 2011
Citation: Oxxford Information Technology, Ltd. v. Novantas LLC, 2010 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8496 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't Nov. 16, 2010).
Employee/Employer Implicated: Owner/Executive, information technology manager, C-level executive, owner, counsel (in-house & outside counsel)
e-Lesson Learned: The best way to protect trade secrets and other discoverable information is through a bargained for confidentiality agreement, which will likely be upheld in its original form
Twitter This: “If you bargain in favor of your privacy, you won’t fall victim to a bait-and-switch”
When confidential business information comes into play, it is imperative that parties diligently bargain to protect their interests. Once an agreement is reached the parties will be expected to uphold their side of the bargain based on the other side’s reliance. Continue reading »
No Comments » |
More...
|
Permalink
Tagged as: Chain of Custody, Computer Forensics Protocols, Discoverability, Meet & Confer, Production of Data
View more articles implicating: Document Custodians, In-House Counsel, Information Technology Professionals, Outside Counsel, Owners/Executives
May 27, 2011
Citation: Ahroner v. Israel Discount Bank of New York, etc., et al., 2010 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9087 (Dec. 7, 2010).
Employee/Employer Implicated: Banks, Management, and Attorneys
In 2002, bank employee Jacob Ahroner was not happy with his employer, Israel Discount Bank of New York. Consequently, in July 2003, he brought suit, alleging hostile work environment and discrimination based on race, age, and national origin.
In November 2002, seven months prior to filing the action, however, Ahroner’s attorney wrote to the Bank. The letter informed the Bank that it was “placed on notice that [it] must undertake all efforts to preserve from spoliation all documents and other records relating to our client’s employment, as well as any unlawful conduct of [the Bank] or its employees. As you may be aware, spoliation gives rise to an inference and instruction that the missing documents would have proved the charging party’s case.” The Bank replied that it was aware of its obligations. Continue reading »
No Comments » |
More...
|
Permalink
Tagged as: Experts, Sanctions, Spoliation
View more articles implicating: Employees, In-House Counsel, Information Technology Professionals, Miscellaneous, Upper Management
April 23, 2011
Citation: Gallagher v. Crystal Bay Casino, LLC et al., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124421 (D. Nev. Nov. 8, 2010)
e-Lesson Learned: Failure to preserve evidence can be fatal, financially and judicially.
Twitter This: Whether a company keeps everything, or waits until a trigger to begin preservation, they should consult a lawyer to develop the proper plan for their company.
When I was a kid, every year at Hanukah, my mom had a one in one out policy for toys. If I got a new Transformer, I had to donate an old toy to Goodwill. It taught me two important lessons: always think of those less fortunate and try to keep the clutter in your home to a minimum.
My fiancé cannot bear to part with anything. About five years ago she lost weight and went from a size 14 to a size 8. Today, half of her closet is filled with clothes that are 6 sizes too big for her.
Which one would you rather have for a client? Continue reading »
5 Comments |
More...
|
Permalink
Tagged as: Good Faith, Legal Hold/Preservation, Sanctions, Spoliation
View more articles implicating: In-House Counsel, Information Technology Professionals, Owners/Executives
April 2, 2011
Citation: Oxxford Info. Tech., Ltd. v Novantas LLC, 2010 NY Slip Op 8363 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep
Employee/Employer Implicated: Outside counsel, In-house counsel
e-Lesson Learned: You have to pay for the deletion of inadvertently backed up business information that was obtained by you from the opposing side, according to a confidentiality stipulation. You cannot renegotiate the terms of a confidentiality agreement regarding your adversary’s business information.
Twitter This: You only get one shot – Think before you make a promise and then make sure you and your lawyers keep it, if not it could cost you!
You have to make sure everyone on your side keeps the promises you make! When you and your adversary enter into a confidentiality stipulation about the return or destruction of confidential business information you received as a result of a lawsuit, you have to make sure that you and your outside counsel fully comply with this agreement, even if it turns out to be more costly than you anticipated. This applies even to inadvertently backed-up information by your outside counsel, as it did to the Plaintiff in Oxxford Information Technology, Ltd. V. Novantas LLC. Continue reading »
4 Comments |
More...
|
Permalink
Tagged as: Accessibility, Good Faith, Procedure, Sanctions
View more articles implicating: In-House Counsel, Outside Counsel
March 31, 2011
Citation: Brinckerhoff v. Town of Paradise, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126895 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2010).
e-Lesson Learned: Original format is not necessary, but the format provided must be accessible for opposing counsel to use in litigation. Metadata is only necessary if it may result in pivotal discovery.

Legal counsel for both parties left the judge frustrated from unprofessional conduct and lazy discovery techniques. Judge Hollows stated, “In the future, the court will decline to hear any discovery matters where the Federal and Local Rules are not strictly followed.” So, when it comes to electronic discovery being strictly followed, keep in mind the following: 1) address the issue EARLY; 2) keep documents in easily accessible format; and 3) supply metadata for pivotal documents.
In the facts, Brinckerhoff worked for the Town of Paradise as a volunteer firefighter. Subsequently, she was appointed to a civil service position and eventually terminated. She brought suit for wrongful discrimination and requested documents in their original format. Included in the documents was an evaluation of plaintiff while she worked for the Town.
In Plaintiff’s motion to compel, she argued that defendant should be required to produce responsive emails in their native format (not hard copy).
Continue reading »
1 Comment |
More...
|
Permalink
Tagged as: Metadata, Production of Data
View more articles implicating: In-House Counsel, Information Technology Professionals, Uncategorized
March 25, 2011
Citation: Brinckerhoff v. Town of Paradise, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126895 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
e-Lesson Learned: Litigating parties have a mutual obligation to discuss the issue of electronic discovery at the discovery conference. Failure to discuss the issue results in both heightened scrutiny of a later motion to compel discovery of ESI and, if the motion fails, sifting through 4,000 pages of e-mail printouts.
From 2001-2009 Melissa Brinckerhoff was a volunteer firefighter in the town of Paradise, California. Volunteer is a misnomer however, as the town’s firefighters were entitled to benefits and some pay. These volunteers are also protected by various anti-discrimination statutes. Brinckerhoff was fired in 2009. She filed an action claiming that the fire department extended her probationary period and later terminated her because of her gender and claimed disability based on a back injury. Continue reading »
1 Comment |
More...
|
Permalink
Tagged as: Meet & Confer, Metadata, Production of Data
View more articles implicating: In-House Counsel, Outside Counsel
March 20, 2011
Citation: GATX Corp v. Appalachian Fuels, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129706 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 7,2010)
e-Lesson Learned: Accidental disclosure of privileged (attorney client) e-mail requires strict adherence to Rule 502 (b), failure to comply with (Rule 502 (b) will likely result in a finding that any waiver of privilege was intentional. An attempt to introduce accidentally disclosed communication risks access to all such communication.
Twitter This: Carelessness in releasing attorney client e-mail costs more time and effort than careful review of discovery responses.
A Kentucky law firm narrowly escaped a waiver of privilege via adherence to Rule 502 (b). After carelessly turning over privileged e-mails; Wood, Wood and Young (of Maysville Kentucky) learned the hard way that turning over reams of e-mail absent careful redaction of privileged communications can have serious consequences. Fortunately, the firm adhered to Rule 502 (b) after opposing counsel put them on notice that privileged communication had been disclosed. In GATX Corp v. Appalachian Fuels, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129706 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 7,2010) the employees merely communicated with counsel via e-mail on a range of topics, some privileged and in the ordinary course of business. Unlike phone calls and snail mail, those communications were easily retrievable, voluminous in nature, and consequently less readily subject to redaction. Continue reading »
No Comments » |
More...
|
Permalink
Tagged as: Discoverability, Privilege, Waiver
View more articles implicating: Employees, In-House Counsel, Miscellaneous, Upper Management
February 28, 2011
Citation: In re Stern, 321 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 2010)
Employee/Employer Implicated: Owner/Executive, Counsel
e-Lesson Learned: Do not be afraid to challenge a court’s holding on electronic discovery. A court appointed special master to review your hard drive and files MUST comply with specific procedures and rules.
Twitter This: TX Ct App: access to a party’s data storage device is particularly intrusive and should generally be discouraged http://ellblog.com/?p=2246
Don’t be afraid to challenge electronic discovery requests, and certainly do not be afraid to challenge a court’s e-discovery ruling. In Re Stern, the Defendant Stern, appealed a Texas lower court’s decision that required him to surrender his hard drive to a special master appointed by the court who would perform a forensic examination of his computer hard drive, external hard drive, jump drives and other such repositories of electronic communications. Guess what? (sigh of relief) Stern won.
On appeal, Stern argued that surrendering his hard drive exceeded the scope of the discovery relevant to the case, and that since he had made no showing of bad faith when attempting to comply with Plaintiff’s original discovery demands this was an abuse of the court’s discretion. Continue reading »
1 Comment |
More...
|
Permalink
Tagged as: Discoverability, Procedure
View more articles implicating: In-House Counsel, Outside Counsel, Owners/Executives
February 20, 2011
Citation: Gates v. Wheeler, 2010 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1136 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2010)
e-Lesson Learned: Do not put anything into your company’s computers that you want to remain private. Do not read your business partners emails.
Twitter This: You may have an expectation of privacy in your emails, but don’t expect your boss to abide by it --> http://ellblog.com/?p=2238

Everyone knows that the iPhone is a superior method of communication. It far surpasses all other computers, smart phones, company email accounts, Morse code, smoke signals and binary code communications. And most importantly, IT CANNOT BE ACCESSED BY YOUR BUSINESS PARTNER. In Gates v. Wheeler, 2010 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1136 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2010), the respondent may have been vindicated, but the problem was partly of his own making.
In Gates, Gates sued his business partner, Wheeler, for equitable relief concerning their jointly held LLC. The two were the sole partners and could not agree on business decisions. As they were deadlocked, Gates sued to have the court remedy the situation. Fairly typical case until Wheeler decided to cheat.
Continue reading »
1 Comment |
More...
|
Permalink
Tagged as: Discoverability, Good Faith, Legal Hold/Preservation, Privilege, Work-Product Doctrine
View more articles implicating: Employees, In-House Counsel, Outside Counsel, Owners/Executives, Upper Management