Electronic Discovery and Computer Forensics Case List - Kroll Ontrack

defective files, costing [the plaintiffs] unnecessary time and expense. Consequently, the Court
admonishes [the defendants] for its discovery practices, and reminds [the defendants] of its
obligation to this Court to contact it when discovery issues arise.” The court determined the
defendants’ conduct had prejudiced the plaintiffs and granted the motion to amend the order,
noting that further violations may result in sanctions. Declining to appoint a special master, the
court stated the current magistrate was capable of resolving any technical discovery disputes but
declared the parties could hire a neutral technical consultant at their own expense.
� In re Plastics Additives Antitrust Litig., 2004 WL 2743591 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2004). The
plaintiffs filed a class action antitrust lawsuit alleging price fixing in violation of various federal
statutes. The plaintiffs offered a proposed scheduling order, requesting the defendants produce all
relevant data in an electronic format and provide technical assistance for understanding the data.
The defendants objected, arguing the proposed order was excessively burdensome and did not
place a similar burden on the plaintiffs. The court granted the plaintiffs’ proposed scheduling order
in part, finding that both parties’ data must be produced electronically “to the extent reasonably
feasible.” However, the court did not require the defendants to provide technical assistance to the
plaintiffs, stating “[u]nless otherwise agreed upon, interpretations of data produced through
discovery should be obtained through traditional discovery outlets and through the hiring of expert
witnesses.”
� In re Spring Ford Indus., Inc., 2004 WL 1291223 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. May 20, 2004). In a
commercial rent collection dispute, the debtor produced an e-mail from its attorney regarding
proposed amendments to the lease contract. The debtor’s counsel also indicated that it had other
related e-mails but that they were subject to the attorney-client privilege. In response, the creditor
argued that the debtor should be compelled to produce the e-mails because the privilege had been
waived when the debtor produced the original e-mail from its attorney. Determining that the
privilege had not been waived, the court declared that there was “no evidence that the document
was created in the course of rendering legal advice…[a]t best, the Disclosed E-mail is educational
in nature.” The court further stated that even had the disclosed e-mail been privileged, the privilege
would not necessarily be waived as to subsequent e-mails.
� Capricorn Power Co. v. Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp., 220 F.R.D. 429 (W.D.Pa. 2004).
The defendant sought a preservation order requiring the plaintiff to preserve documents and things,
including electronic documents. The plaintiff, in responding to the defendant’s motion, countered
with a preservation order request of its own, requiring the defendant to preserve and produce
documents. In addressing the need for these orders, the court focused on the medium in which the
evidence was stored. The court stated that “[if] the evidence is stored upon a computer floppy disk
or hard drive, finding physical space to store the evidence will not be as much of an issue … [but]
evidence stored within a computer hard drive may present a difficulty in that it may be
compromised or degraded as new information is added and pieces of old information are ‘deleted’
and subsequently written over by the computer.” In discussing when an order would be
appropriate, the court declared that timing is of the essence, particularly in cases where a party
does not know that electronic evidence needs to be preserved. Denying both preservation order
requests, the court determined that there was insufficient proof showing that evidence would be
lost or destroyed absent these orders.
� Koen v. Powell, 212 F.R.D. 283 (E.D. Pa. 2002). In a legal malpractice suit, the court held that the
attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine did not shield the defendants from turning over
e-mails relating to the threatened malpractice suit.
104