Electronic Discovery and Computer Forensics Case List - Kroll Ontrack

� Keystone Fruit Mktg., Inc. v. Brownfield, 2007 WL 788358 (E.D. Wash. Mar. 14, 2007). In a
misappropriation of trade secrets case, the plaintiff alleged that one of its former employees
opened and used a key document on her laptop after being fired from the plaintiff’s company. The
employee was then hired by the defendant who is a competitor in the field. The fired employee
stated that she merely opened up the document and viewed it and argued that it was only
speculation that the document was given to or used with the defendant’s business. She also
claimed that any documents belonging to the plaintiff were destroyed. However, the plaintiff
conducted a computer forensics analysis on the hard drive of the employee’s laptop and home and
work computers. The analysis showed that the employee retained the plaintiff’s data and files on
her home computer and that some of those files also existed in her e-mail account and on the
computers at the defendant’s company. This evidence was contrary to the employee’s testimony
that she destroyed all of plaintiff’s data and did not use the plaintiff’s computer data in her new
employment. Based on these facts, the court allowed the plaintiff to amend its complaint to
supplement claims against the defendant.
� Hedenburg v. Aramark Am. Food Services, 2007 WL 162716 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 17, 2007). In a
gender discrimination employment suit, the defendant moved the court to compel production of the
plaintiff’s home computer hard drive. The defendant argues that the home hard drive may contain
information, namely e-mails or letters to other people, which may reveal discrepancies between her
testimony and statements to others regarding her actual emotional state of mind while working for
the defendant. The plaintiff argues that the request is a “fishing expedition” for evidence and
information contained on the hard drive would have little relevance to the case. The court denied
the defendant’s motion stating that the “central claims in the case are wholly unrelated to the
contents of plaintiff’s computer.” The court further held that the “defendant is hoping blindly to find
something useful in its impeachment of the plaintiff” and there is not a strong likelihood that
evidence would be found on the hard drive. Furthermore, the court described the defendant’s
request as a “search warrant” stating that defendant merely is searching for evidence that may not
exist and the burden of such a search clearly outweighs the benefit.
� The Bedford, LLC v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 2006 WL 3616434 (Wash. App. Div. 1 Dec. 11,
2006). In a breach of contract case, the plaintiff appealed a jury decision in favor of the defendant
based on the defendant’s failure to disclose an attachment to an e-mail before trial. The
defendant’s attachment to the e-mail was only available on a backup tape which was eventually
recovered and produced shortly before the trial’s end. The e-mail was sent from the defendant’s
expert and the attachment was a draft of his expert report. The plaintiff argued it was significantly
prejudiced in its claim because of the discovery delay. The defendant argued the attachment was
only a draft and it was under no obligation to produce mere drafts of expert reports which were
ultimately submitted to the plaintiff. The court held that there is no duty to retain all experts’ drafts
which are eventually overwritten and submitted in a separate final form. The court also held the
plaintiff was not prejudiced by the surprise draft report before the trial ended because it had a
chance to cross-examine the author of the report.
� Henry v. IAC/Interactive Group, 2006 WL 354971 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 14, 2006). In a case
involving employment discrimination allegations and breach of contract counterclaims, the
defendants asserted they first learned (months into the discovery process) the plaintiff possessed
tens of thousands of company documents, a company-issued laptop, and a company e-mail
account. The defendants promptly demanded the return of this data, any copies of the data, and
written declarations regarding use of the data. Ultimately, the plaintiff turned over several
computers, documents, computer disks and CDs to a neutral computer forensic expert.
260