Electronic Discovery and Computer Forensics Case List - Kroll Ontrack

� Itzenson v. Hartford Life and Accident Ins. Co., 2000 WL 1507422 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 10, 2000). “It
is difficult to believe that in the computer era” that the defendant could not identify files and filter out
information based on specific categories.
� Storch v. IPCO Safety Prods. Co., 1997 WL 401589 (E.D. Pa. July 16, 1997). “This Court finds
that in this age of high-technology where much of our information is transmitted by computer and
computer disks, it is not unreasonable for the defendant to produce the information on computer
disk for the plaintiff.”
� United States v. Keystone Sanitation Co., 885 F. Supp. 672 (M.D. Pa. 1994). In complying with
the court’s discovery order, the defendants inadvertently disclosed e-mail messages that contained
potentially confidential communications. This inadvertent disclosure waived any attorney-client
privilege that may have protected portions of the e-mail.
� Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc. v. Home Indemnity Co., 1991 WL 111040 (E.D. Pa. June 17, 1991).
An unwieldy computerized record-keeping system, which requires heavy expenditures in money
and time to produce relevant records, is simply not an adequate excuse to frustrate discovery. The
plaintiffs were required to pay for copies of any documents on microfilm/microfiche which the
plaintiff requests, while the defendants bear the burden of searching and producing the documents.
� National Union Elec. Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Ind. Co., 494 F. Supp. 1257 (E.D. Pa. 1980).
The defendant filed a motion to compel production of a computer tape containing the information
that the plaintiff previously produced in a hard copy. The court required the plaintiff to have
computer experts create a computer-readable tape containing data previously supplied to the
defendant in printed form.
Fourth Circuit – State and Federal Cases
� Nicholas v. Wyndham Int’l, Inc., 373 F.3d 537 (4th Cir. July 2, 2004). On behalf of their daughter,
the plaintiffs filed an action in the Virgin Islands against a hotel chain, alleging that one of the
hotel’s employees had molested the plaintiffs’ daughter. In response, the defendants had a
subpoena issued in Virginia for the deposition of a nonparty corporation owned by the plaintiffs.
The subpoena also ordered the corporation to produce any relevant documents, including e-mails
relating to the action. After the plaintiffs did not respond to the subpoena or appear for the
deposition, the defendant sought to compel the corporation’s deposition and the document
production. The plaintiff moved for a protective order. Determining that the defendant’s discovery
requests were cumulative and duplicative, unduly burdensome, and harassing, the district court
granted the protective order to the plaintiffs’ company. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the
district court’s decision noting that the “[p]laintiffs had already produced some 400 pages of emails…and
they remain under continuing obligation to supplement their earlier productions.”
� Columbia Communications v. Echostar, 2 Fed.Appx. 360 (4th Cir. 2001). In a contract dispute,
the court held that failure of the lessor to turn over certain computer databases during discovery did
not justify a judgment for the distributor or a new trial.
� United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220 (4th Cir. 1990). Computer data consisting of IRS taxpayer
data compilations is admissible as official records.
North Carolina
� Wood v. Town of Warsaw, 2011 WL 6748797 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 22, 2011). In this employment
discrimination litigation, the defendant sought to modify a Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 subpoena seeking
105