Electronic Discovery and Computer Forensics Case List - Kroll Ontrack

The defendant failed to properly answer an interrogatory question that directly related to its motion
for of dismissal based on the defendant’s lack of jurisdiction. The defendant claimed the plaintiff
lacked jurisdiction and the plaintiff asked for information in discovery to support that contention.
Throughout the litigation the defendant failed to answer the interrogatory and failed to give
information regarding its research of the issue during multiple depositions. The plaintiff argued that
it was only in search of information from the defendant’s electronic database of client names to
determine their residency and whether the clients were in fact within the plaintiff’s jurisdiction. The
defendant asserted that it lacked knowledge of the information and could not produce the
evidence. It also claimed that it would research the issue and during a subsequent deposition, a
key defense witness stated he forgot the research results and would supplement the plaintiff later.
However, he never did. The court ordered the defendant to produce their electronic database of
clients to the plaintiff and noted that the defendant “has engaged in exactly the type of
gamesmanship which is expressly prohibited by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
universally condemned by the applicable case law.” The court also ordered the defendant to pay
the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs.
� Marwaha v. SBC Global Services, Inc., 2006 WL 2882854 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 6, 2006). In an
employment discrimination suit, the plaintiff motioned the court to sanction the defendant for failure
to produce a particular e-mail during discovery. The plaintiff attempted to negotiate with the
defendant about the production of an e-mail not originally demanded by the plaintiff in initial
discovery requests. The plaintiff stated they would not file a motion to compel the production of the
relevant e-mail if the defendant stipulated to certain facts, which would be proven by the e-mail.
The defendant did not stipulate to the agreement and the plaintiff brought a motion for sanctions
based on the defendant’s failure to follow thorough with the “informal agreement.” The court ruled
there was no evidence the defendant agreed to the informal agreement and even if they had
agreed, the court stated they “cannot be called upon to police such ambiguous agreements.” The
court also stated the request for the e-mail was beyond the scope of the plaintiff’s discovery
requests, and it could not be compelled for production.
� King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Assoc. v. Blackwell, 448 F.Supp.2d 876 (S.D. Ohio
2006). In an action to prevent voting discrimination, the plaintiff brought sued to determine if voting
in the state of Ohio was racially discriminated against during the 2004 election. The plaintiff claims
a disproportionate number of black voting districts in Ohio were provided with a smaller number of
balloting machines compared to the more predominately white districts during the 2004 presidential
elections. The plaintiff seeks fairer voting procedures during the upcoming 2008 national elections.
The court ordered that all 88 county election boards preserve all ballots from the 2004 election in
any form they are contained, including electronic form. The court noted that it has the power to
issue sanctions in the form of contempt and otherwise for any third-party that fails to preserve any
ballots in their paper or electronic form.
� O’Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enters., 2006 WL 2583327 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 5, 2006). In a wage and hour
claim against a former employer, the employee plaintiffs sought sanctions against the defendant
employer for deliberately destroying discoverable documents. Plaintiffs argued that defendant
“destroyed … records with a culpable state of mind.” The documents in question were time card
records printed out routinely and backed-up on defendant’s in-house server. Defendants
acknowledged that, while they intended to keep all time card records, they were not able to locate
the records for a small fraction of the days for which the plaintiffs requested documents.
Defendants stated that they did not realize until after the lawsuit was filed, that the records were
missing. Defendants contended that, the records “were created [and the electronic information
164