Electronic Discovery and Computer Forensics Case List - Kroll Ontrack

Qualcomm, Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 2007 WL 2296441 (S.D.Cal. Aug. 6, 2007); Qualcomm, Inc. v.
Broadcom Corp., 2007 WL 1031373 (S.D.Cal. March 21, 2007).
� Wingnut Films, Ltd. v. Katja Motion Pictures Corp., 2007 WL 2758571 (C.D.Cal. Sept. 18,
2007). In this contract dispute, discovery was a long, drawn out battle where the defendant
repeatedly failed to comply with court ordered discovery. For over a year, the defendant responded
to orders compelling production by repeatedly certifying they had fully complied without producing
any correspondence, memoranda, e-mail, notes, work papers or litigation settlement documents.
Relying on Tulip Computers Int’l B.V. v. Dell Computer Corp., 2002 WL 818061 (D.Del. Apr.30
2002), the court ordered the defendant to retain an outside vendor to access servers and hard
drives of specified employees and conduct keyword searches for responsive documents and emails.
The court also imposed monetary sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2) and 26(g)(3) in the
amount of $125,000.
� Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Bunnell, 2007 WL 2702062 (C.D.Cal. Aug. 24, 2007). In this copyright
infringement litigation the defendant, the operator of a website engine that enables users to locate
and download dot-torrent files, sought review of a magistrate’s order requiring production of server
log data stored in random access memory (RAM). The defendant argued that data stored in RAM
is too ephemeral and temporary to be considered electronically stored information (ESI) within the
meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). Citing the Advisory Committee Notes to the Rules, the court
explained that Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a) was to be read expansively and denied the motion.
Responding to concerns about the potential impact of the decision with respect to individual and
business record-keeping obligations, the court held the decision was limited to the defendant in this
case, who, only after the issuance of a court order, was obliged to preserve and produce the server
log data.
� Google Inc. v. Am. Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 2007 WL 1848665 (N.D.Cal June 27, 2007).
In this trademark case, the plaintiff sought terminating, evidentiary, and monetary sanctions from
the defendant based on its alleged failure to preserve, collect, and produce documentary evidence.
The plaintiff showed that no deposed employee recalled the existence of a preservation plan after
the litigation ensued, that employees routinely deleted documents, and that the defendant confined
its production to communications between the two companies, which were already in the plaintiff’s
possession. The defendant offered little rebuttal evidence. The court agreed with the plaintiff
finding “a willful indifference” with regards to the defendant’s discovery obligations. However, the
court was unwilling to impose terminating sanctions and instead ordered evidentiary sanctions in
the form of several judicially established facts and also ordered monetary sanctions in the form of a
$15,000 sanction against the defendant. The plaintiff also argued the founder and CEO of the
defendant’s company destroyed and erased electronic data from certain computers upon his
resignation. However, the court found that only a possibility remained that some relevant
documents may have been lost as a result of this conduct, and the weight of the evidence did not
support an inference that any wholesale destruction of relevant evidence took place at that time.
� In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litig., 2007 WL 1827635 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2007). In a suit alleging an
illegal price fixing scheme, the plaintiff motioned the court to compel the defendant to produce
numerous additional documents in discovery and sought modification of the production format
previously agreed upon by the parties. The plaintiff sought production of material regarding
networks other than the defendants, material provided to the government or in connection with
other relevant private litigation, material regarding ATM networks in foreign countries, material from
the inception of the plaintiff’s network to date, materials regarding entities that the defendant
acquired, among other things. The defendant argued the scope of discovery sought was limitless
235