Electronic Discovery and Computer Forensics Case List - Kroll Ontrack

electronic documents from its e-mail system. The defendant argued the documents had been
obtained after a detailed and exhaustive keyword search resulting in over 17,000 potentially
relevant documents which had to be “organized, compiled, reviewed, Bates stamped and
converted into the appropriate format.” However, the defendant failed to provide sworn affidavits
supporting its assertion that the delay in production was necessary to avoid undue burden and
expense. The court found the defendant’s argument without substantial justification, and issued a
sanction in the amount of $1,500 against the defendant as a reminder for parties and their counsel
to cooperate when conducting litigation.
� Floeter v. City of Orlando, 2006 WL 1000306 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2006). In a sexual harassment
case, the plaintiff requested, inter alia, production of e-mails and a computer printout of e-mails
containing sexually explicit or pornographic materials. The plaintiff also sought to inspect computer
hard drives of the defendant, his former employer. Objecting, the defendant claimed searching for
this information would be unduly burdensome. The district court granted the plaintiff’s requests in
part, limiting production to all relevant e-mails contained on the computer of a specified individual.
In addressing the plaintiff’s request to inspect the defendant’s hard drives, the court concluded the
plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendant had withheld relevant documents stored on the
computers in question. The court observed that Fed.R.Civ.P. 34 permits a party to request
documents but “does not give the requesting party the right to conduct the actual search.”
� Martin v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 2006 WL 148991 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 19, 2006). The
defendant sought to dismiss a disability benefits lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiff, a former
trial lawyer, failed to meet his discovery obligations. During discovery, the defendant suspected the
plaintiff failed to produce all requested information. Upon subpoenaing the plaintiff’s employee and
fiancée, the defendant received electronic documents the plaintiff previously claimed did not exist.
The plaintiff claimed the omission was innocent and stated he had directed his accountant to
gather the requested documents and give the defendant “everything.” According to the plaintiff, the
accountant either failed to understand the scope of the demand or the obligations it imposed. In
addressing the dispute, the court declared the plaintiff’s claim “that he is so computer illiterate that
he could not comply with production is frankly ludicrous.” The court asserted the plaintiff, as an
attorney, should have understood his obligations and should not have relied on his accountant to
fulfill his duties. Although declining to dismiss the case, the court directed the plaintiff to reimburse
the defendant its reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees.
� AutoNation, Inc. v. Hatfield, 2006 WL 60547 (Fla.Cir.Ct. Jan. 4, 2006). In a case involving a trade
secret theft action, the plaintiff sought, and the court issued, an injunction against the defendant.
The injunction required the defendant to return hard copy files, electronic files, computer disks and
other computer storage media relating to the plaintiff’s business. In addition, the court ordered a
third party to make her personal computer available to the plaintiff for forensic examination by an
expert. The expert was to determine whether the plaintiff’s material existed on the computer and if
e-mails the defendant had sent to the third party’s address were forwarded, altered or used. The
court permitted the expert to copy any of the plaintiff’s material on the computer and then delete all
such material from the computer. Finally, the court authorized the defendant and the third party to
have an independent forensic expert in attendance at the inspection.
� Menke v. Broward County Sch. Bd., 916 So.2d 8 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005). Alleging a teacher
exchanged sexually explicit e-mails with students and made derogatory comments about school
staff, a school board sought to compel production of all computers in the teacher’s household.
Additionally, the Board sought to have its own computer expert search the computers in the
expert’s laboratory for the alleged messages between the teacher and students. Objecting to the
302