Electronic Discovery and Computer Forensics Case List - Kroll Ontrack

electronic discovery of the defendant’s e-mail system. The court, in denying the plaintiff’s motion
for reconsideration, determined that the plaintiff presented no new information that justified an
intrusive electronic investigation.
� RKI, Inc. v. Grimes, 177 F. Supp. 2d 859 (N.D. Ill. 2001). In a trade secret misappropriation action
against the plaintiff’s former employee, the court found that the defendant defragmented his home
computer in an effort to prevent the plaintiff from learning that he had deleted confidential
information and software. The court ordered the defendant to pay $100,000 in compensatory
damages, $150,000 in punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and court costs.
� McNally Tunneling v. City of Evanston, 2001 WL 1568879 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 10, 2001). In a dispute
between a construction contractor and the City of Evanston, the court denied Evanston wide-scale
access to both hard-copy and electronic versions of McNally’s computer files where Evanston’s
need for both sets of documents was not fully briefed to the court. However, where McNally’s hardcopy
productions were incomplete, the court ordered McNally to supplement the hard-copy
versions with its computer files to ensure that it has produced all of the relevant information.
� Danis v. USN Communications, 2000 WL 1694325 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2000). The court found that
the defendant failed to properly preserve information on the computer database. The court allowed
the trial judge to inform jury that some of the gaps in the case were caused by the defendant’s
failure to turn over computer tapes and documents. The court fined the CEO of the defendant
company $10,000 for failing to properly preserve such electronic information, but denied the
plaintiff’s motion for default judgment.
� Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Metro Mark Prod. Ltd., 43 F. Supp. 2d 951 (N.D. Ill. 1999). In an
unfair competition case, the court ordered the defendant to produce for inspection its computer
after the plaintiff showed that the defendant had been less than forthcoming in producing hard
copies of requested documents. The court further issued sanctions, in the form reasonable
attorney’s fees and costs, for the failure to comply with the discovery orders.
� Chidichimo v. University of Chicago Press, 681 N.E.2d 107 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). Some
jurisdictions recognize a tort action for negligent spoliation of evidence.
� In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig., 1995 WL 360526 (N.D. Ill. June 15,
1995). The court found that expense of retrieving electronic data was mainly due to the defendant’s
own record-keeping scheme. As such, the court required the defendant to produce its responsive,
computer-stored e-mail at its own expense, subject to some limitations. The court also instructed
the plaintiffs to narrow the scope of their request. The parties were encouraged by the court to
confer regarding scope of requests for e-mails.
� Murlas Living Trust v. Mobil Oil Corp., 1995 WL 124186 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 1995). The court
refused to require the defendant to undergo intrusive or burdensome discovery for its electronic
files where the burden is not justified by the relevance of the evidence likely to be discovered.
� Leeson v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 546 N.E.2d 782 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989). Appellate Court held that
the defendant’s claims were justified on grounds of oppressiveness, and therefore; the trial court
abused its discretion in entering default sanctions for the defendant’s failure to comply with the
discovery order. Such production would have been overly burdensome where compliance would
have required the defendant to create a computer program to find the records and at least 15
minutes for an analyst to look through each of the 2,100 claims.
Indiana
189