Electronic Discovery and Computer Forensics Case List - Kroll Ontrack

preserve ‘every shred of paper, every e-mail or electronic document, and every backup tape’
because to require such would ‘cripple large corporations . . . that are almost always involved in
litigation’.” The court found the e-mail was merely an “e-mail envelope” and contained no
substantive information. Additionally, the court declared that even if the non-production was
improper, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the e-mail would have been favorable to the plaintiff.
� People v. Schilke, 2005 WL 1027039 (Mich. Ct. App. May 3, 2005). The defendant appealed a
conviction for unauthorized access to her former employer’s computer. The defendant argued the
trial court should not have admitted evidence relating to the employer’s cost of repairing the
network and the amount of lost revenue arising out of the company’s inability to conduct business
due to the unavailability of the network. On appeal, the court determined the evidence was properly
admitted because it was relevant in determining the amount of damage the company sustained as
a result of the defendant’s actions. The evidence further rebutted the defendant’s assertion that her
actions “should have been easily correctable, and should not have caused very much damage.”
� Nartron Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 2005 WL 26991 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 6, 2005). In a case
involving a breach of contract claim, the plaintiff appealed the trial court’s decision granting costs,
sanctions for discovery abuse, and prejudgment interest in favor of the defendant. The trial court
determined the plaintiff’s failure to produce a database in response to the defendant’s discovery
request “tainted, corrupted, or permeated all of the discovery in the case.” On appeal, the plaintiff
argued the trial court’s finding was unsupported by the evidence and clearly erroneous since it had
produced more than 61,000 pages of documentation and the defendant did not assert those
documents were fraudulent. Rejecting this contention, the appellate court observed the plaintiff did
not attempt to refute the trial court’s finding by demonstrating its conduct regarding the database
did not “taint, corrupt, or permeate all the discovery.” The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s
order in part and awarded the defendant attorney fees, costs and expert witness fees. The
appellate court declined to award prejudgment interest, deciding that the state statute referring to
prejudgment interest did not apply to monetary sanction awards.
� Compuware Corp. v. Moody’s Investors Servs., Inc., 2004 WL 2931401 (E.D.Mich. Dec. 15,
2004). The defendant requested clarification of a discovery order and asked the court to order the
plaintiff to sort through a “catalog of ‘tens of millions’ of documents” to separate the relevant from
non-relevant documents. The defendant’s original request had called for “[a]ll documents produced
by [the defendant] to IBM in any litigation.” The plaintiff contended it had satisfied this request by
offering to provide the defendant with a $40,000 set of portable computer disks containing all of the
documents produced to IBM in litigation. Reviewing the matter, the court noted the parties’ inability
to agree upon discovery matters “highlight[ed] attempts by both sides to needlessly delay and
complicate discovery.” Despite this, the court stated it would not order the plaintiff to produce fewer
documents than the defendant initially demanded. As such, the court denied the defendant’s
requests to narrow the catalog of data to documents relevant in this litigation.
� United States v. Alexander, 2004 WL 2095701 (E.D.Mich. Sept. 14, 2004). In a criminal
proceeding, the government seized the defendant’s computer to search for evidence that the
defendant unlawfully transferred obscene pictures over the Internet. After the seizure, the
defendant requested that the government provide him with a mirror image of his computer hard
drive to allow his computer forensic expert to examine the drive for potential evidence. In an
affidavit, the forensic expert declared he planned to form an opinion, based upon his examination
of the hard drive, as to whether the defendant knowingly received the obscene images. The expert
stated that a mirror image was necessary so he could perform his analysis in his own laboratory,
using his own computer forensic software and hardware, which might be difficult to transport to
157