Gutman v. Klein serves as a warning to everyone involved in e-discovery of the seriousness of misconduct. It’s also one of the funniest cases to read because of the fumbling testimony of the defendant’s “computer guy” (who was a relative of the defendant hired to give testimony about the electronic evidence) and the glaringly obvious […]

Mancia V. Mayflower Textile Services Co., et al., 2008; the Duty of Cooperate and FRCP Rule 26 (g) (E-Discovery)

Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Services Co., was a collective action against several Mayflower companies for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiffs’ claim was that they had not been paid for overtime work, and illegal deductions were being made from their wages. Despite warnings, the parties didn’t cooperate or communicate as they were […]

Micron Industries Inc. v. Hurd Windows & Doors Inc., 2008; Duty to Confer (E-Discovery)

In Mikron Industries Inc. v. Hurd Windows & Doors Inc., a breach of contract case, the defendant sought both a protective order and cost-shifting. However, Hurd didn’t show that it had met its obligation under Rule 26(c), which requires that you confer in good faith with your opponent. The judge ruled against the defendants because […]

Gross Construction Associates, Inc., V. American Mfrs. Mutual Ins. Co., 2009; Keyword Searches (E-Discovery)

Gross Construction Associates, Inc., v. American Mfrs. Mutual Ins. Co., (2009) was a multi-million dollar dispute over alleged defects and delays in the construction of the Bronx Criminal Court Complex. The construction management company, a non-party to the litigation, sought to produce relevant ESI (as required), but without producing its entire e-mail database. Both of […]

Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Co., 2007; Insurance Dispute (E-Discovery)

Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Co. was a lawsuit over insurance coverage for a boat damaged by lightning. The insurance company paid a claim for damage, but later Lorraine found additional damage and claimed an additional $36,000 to fix the boat. The matter went to arbitration, and the arbiter gave Lorraine an award of $14,000. […]

Doe V. NorWalk Community College, 2007; the Safe Harbor of FRCP Rule 37(e) (E-Discovery)

We included Doe v. Norwalk Community College for a couple of reasons: the use of an adverse inference sanction for spoliation and the application of the FRCP Rule 37(e) safe harbor. A safe harbor is a potential safety net against sanctions if you lose or inadvertently destroy ESI provided that you acted in good faith. […]

United States v. O'Keefe, 2008; Criminal Case Involving e-Discovery

U.S. v. O’Keefe (2008) is an influential case because it addresses ESI in criminal matters. There is no rule in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCrimP) related to presenting documents or ESI to the defendant in an organized fashion. No rule says the government cannot just dump documents on the defendant. In O’Keefe, Magistrate […]

Qualcomm v. Broadcom, 2008; Patent Dispute (E-Discovery)

Fiery disputes about the failure to produce relevant e-mails were non-stop in Qualcomm v. Broadcom. The judge found that Qualcomm’s lawyers misrepresented (legalese for “lied about”) the existence of certain electronic documents pertaining to video compression technology. The court pointed to Qualcomm’s lawyers adamantly maintaining that no Qualcomm employee had sent e-mail to the Joint […]

Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 2008; Copyright Infringement (E-Discovery)

A defendant’s poorly executed ESI and document review handed the opponent a win in Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc. Creative Pipe initially had requested a clawback agreement because it had inadvertently handed over privileged documents that it wanted back. Later, to get more time to review documents, Creative Pipe traded off that clawback […]

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 2003-2005; Employment Discrimination (E-Discovery)

The opinions of Judge Shira A. Scheindlin in Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC (Zubulake I, II, III, IV, and V) have become iconic e-discovery rulings, so we have to include them at the very beginning of this topic. The series of five decisions, spanning 2003 to 2005, made this employment discrimination lawsuit arguably the most […]