|
Cases
Anti-Monopoly,
Inc. v. Hasbro, Inc. 1995 WL 649934, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16355,
S.D.N.Y., 1995.
Magistrate Judge
Andrew Peck Good analysis of digital discovery issues. Plaintiff moved
to compel Hasbro to disclose computer database notwithstanding that
Hasbro had already disclosed a paper version. Court found that Plaintiff
was certainly entitled to databases even though paper copies had been
produced, and producing party can be required to design a computer program
to extract the data from its computerized business records, subject
to the Court's discretion as to the allocation of the costs of designing
such a computer program. Court analyzed time and expense required to
create such a database, found that potential benefit to plaintiff was
speculative, and ordered parties to meet and discuss. When Plaintiff
later moved to compel disclosure without having to pay for it, court
held that Plaintiff would be required to pay expenses
Toledo
Fair Hous. Ctr. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. 703 N.E.2d 340, Ohio Com.Pl.,
1996.
African-American
homeowners and prospective homeowners brought action against insurance
company alleging that company engaged in "redlining" to avoid African
American neighborhoods. Judge held that class status was warranted,
and allowed discovery of insurance company's databases of documents
regarding policy renewals and cancellations, financial information,
marketing, info on redlining, and employee portfolios, but not on insurer's
sales meetings or agent interactions. Defendant argued that discovery
order was burdensome, predicting cost of more than $110,000, but judge
says that they cannot avoid discovery just because their own record
keeping system makes discovery burdensome. "If a party chooses to store
information in a manner that tends to conceal rather than reveal, that
party bears the burden of putting the information in a format useable
by others." Insurance company ordered to pay costs of discovery.
In
re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation 1995 WL 360526,
N.D.Ill., 1995.
Class Plaintiffs
moved to compel disclosure of Defendant CIBA-Geigy Corporation's inter-corporate
emails. Defendant admitted emails are discoverable, but argued that
request was overly broad, burdensome, and expensive, and therefore Plaintiff's
should pay estimated $50,000-$70,000 to retrieve emails. Court found
that expense was mainly due to Defendant's own record-keeping scheme.
Court noted that at least four other defendant manufacturers had produced
emails without requesting that Plaintiffs pay. Plaintiffs' motion granted.
Procter
& Gamble Co. v. Haugen 179 F.R.D. 622, D.Utah, 1998.
P & G sued competitor
and competitor's distributors for spreading rumors of P & G's Satanism,
specifically alleging defamation, unfair competition, violations of
Lanham act, Utah Truth in Advertising Act, etc. Judge Kimball dealt
with various motions here, including sanctioning P&G for failing to
preserve relevant emails, and allowed P&G to do a keyword search of
Defendant's database on issues concerning agency or control in general,
but limited search so that it would not yield general commercial or
competitive information.
|
Articles
Delaney, Timothy
Q. "E-mail discovery: The duties,
danger and expense." Federal Lawyer 46 (January 1999) 42
Lacouture, Peter
V. "Discovery and the use of
computer-based information in litigation." Rhode Island Bar Journal
45 (December 1997), 9.
Grenig, Jay E. "Electronic
discovery: Making your opponent's computer a vital part of your legal
team." American Journal of Trial Advocacy 21 (Fall 1997), 293
Rubenstein, Bruce.
"Electronic discovery costs are leveraging settlements."
Corporate Legal Times 7 (September 1997), 26
The
Linnen Story: Excerpts from Mundy, Alicia. "Dispensing
with the Truth"
|