Electronic Discovery and Computer Forensics Case List - Kroll Ontrack

personal sanctions due to an absence of evidence of bad faith. Of the $57,888.50 sought by the
plaintiff, the court awarded $9,000 as a reasonable sanction.
� United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 2008 WL 191672 (Cal. Jan. 24, 2008). In
this investigation into illegal steroid use by professional athletes, the government executed a
search warrant seizing computer equipment and storage devices, claiming they could not be sorted
on-site due to extensive co-mingling with other data. The defendants sought return of the evidence,
arguing its seizure constituted a callous disregard for the privacy rights of individuals named in the
seized databases. The court, realizing the special complexities caused by ESI and the particular
difficulty faced in instances where the data is incomprehensible and unusable when outside its
native format, found in favor of the government and determined the seizures were reasonable.
� Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 2008 WL 66932 (S.D.Cal. Jan. 7, 2008). In this patent
infringement litigation, the court found the plaintiffs to have committed “monumental and
intentional” discovery violations for failing to produce thousands of documents requested in
discovery. Several plaintiffs’ attorneys were ordered to show cause as to why they should not be
personally sanctioned. Finding an absence of good faith participation in the discovery process, the
court upheld the sanction previously issued, ordering Qualcomm to pay the defendant’s attorney’s
fees in excess of $8.5 million. Additionally, the court sanctioned six attorneys for intentionally hiding
or recklessly ignoring relevant documents and blindly accepting Qualcomm’s claims that the
searches were adequate. The six attorneys were ordered to forward the sanction order to the
California State Bar for review and consideration of possible further disciplinary actions due to
violation of their ethical duties. Additionally, the attorneys were instructed to participate in a Case
Review and Enforcement of Discovery Obligations (CREDO) program. The court believed
participation in this program may deter future discovery misconduct by providing a “road map” to
assist in understanding ethical obligations during the discovery process as well as establish a
turning point for increased ethical conduct in the practice of law.
� Columbia Pictures v. Bunnell, Case No. 2:06-cv-01093 FMC-JCx (C.D.Cal. Dec. 13, 2007). In
this copyright infringement suit, the plaintiffs sought default judgment sanctions based on the
defendants’ spoliation of evidence. The plaintiffs claimed the defendants willfully spoliated
evidence by deleting and modifying user forums to remove mention of copyrighted material,
deleting directory headings, destroying full IP addresses previously kept on file and falsely claiming
that identifying information of moderators was not available. The court set forth five factors to
consider when deciding whether to enter default judgment: 1) expeditious resolution of litigation; 2)
the court’s docket management; 3) risk of prejudice; 4) public policy in deciding cases on their
merits; and 5) the availability of lesser sanctions. The court found the defendants engaged in
efforts to destroy evidence and provided false testimony under oath. Considering lesser sanctions,
the court concluded the prejudice suffered was too great to overcome with an adverse jury
instruction. The court also noted past monetary sanctions imposed upon the defendants were
clearly ineffective and granted the motion for a default judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
� Verigy US, Inc. v. Mayder, 2007 WL 3144577 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 24, 2007). In this trade secret
misappropriation case, the plaintiff sought an expedited motion to compel the defendants to
produce mirror images of all hard drives. The issue at question was whether the defendants should
be permitted an opportunity to review and object to any potential third party expert searches
deemed necessary by the plaintiff. The court held that the defendants’ review of the search terms
was entirely reasonable, comporting with the normal conduct of discovery. The court approved the
defendants’ proposed protocol which allowed for 1) discovery in areas the defendants deemed
233