Electronic Discovery and Computer Forensics Case List - Kroll Ontrack

defendant’s investment officer was located in Montana. At trial, the court found it lacked personal
jurisdiction over the defendant and granted summary judgment. The plaintiff appealed. On appeal,
the court determined it had personal jurisdiction over the defendant because the defendant had
transacted business in New York – even though it was physically located in Montana. The court
stated, “We cannot countenance defendant’s argument that merely because plaintiff initially
approached defendant through modern technology--which enabled defendant to very purposefully
conduct a $15 million deal in Montana with a bank in New York--defendant should be allowed to
evade jurisdiction because that very technology can technically be viewed as only furnishing
services in Montana.”
� Papyrus Tech. Corp. v. New York Stock Exch., Inc., 2005 WL 1606059 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2005).
Weeks after completing expert depositions, the plaintiff sought an order directing the defendant to
produce certain computer files. The plaintiff declared that its late request was immaterial given the
defendant’s continuing duty to supplement its discovery responses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(2).
The defendant had previously produced computer files it found relevant and a list of all of its
computer files, which included the files the plaintiff currently sought. The magistrate refused to
issue the order and declared, “Plaintiff sought a broad array of computer data in 2004 and the
defendant supplied some, objected to some, and identified all of the files in question. Plaintiff chose
not to pursue the matter until now, and offers no basis either for excusing this delay or for deeming
the files in question to be so significant as to justify reopening discovery more than five months
after its close.”
� Public Relations Soc’y of Am., Inc. v. Road Runner High Speed Online, 2005 WL 1330514
(N.Y. May 27, 2005). In connection with their intention to commence a defamation action against
the sender of an alleged defamatory e-mail, the petitioners sought production of relevant
documents pursuant to preaction disclosure rules. The sought after e-mail was in the custody and
control of an internet service provider, the respondent in this case. After finding out about the
motion, the individual who authored the e-mail sought to intervene in the proceeding, vacate the
default judgment, and block the disclosure of the identifying documents. The court looked to a fivefactor
disclosure evaluation test. The test weighed: “(1) whether the claimant has shown a prima
facie cause of actionable harm, (2) whether the discovery request was sufficiently specific as to be
reasonable likely to lead to the identifying information, (3) whether there was an alternative means
to obtain the information, (4) if the information sought was central and necessary to advance the
claim, and (5) if the defendant had any reasonable expectation of privacy in the identifying
information.” Based on the test, the court determined disclosure was warranted and ordered the
respondent to produce the identifying documents.
� Lyondell-Citgo Ref., LP v. Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A., 2005 WL 1026461 (S.D.N.Y. May 2,
2005). In a dispute between two oil companies, the defendant moved to set aside an adverse
inference instruction issued by a magistrate based on the defendant’s failure to produce certain
documents. Specifically, the magistrate had ordered the defendant to "make all Board minutes and
related Board documents available in hard copy, and electronic database, for review by plaintiff’s
counsel." The magistrate further stated that sanctions would be entered for noncompliance with the
order. After the defendant stated it would not be able to comply with the order because Venezuelan
law prohibited disclosure of the relevant documents, the magistrate entered an adverse inference
instruction. In appealing the magistrate’s decision, the defendant claimed the documents being
withheld were irrelevant to the litigation and that the defendant did not possess the requisite
culpable state of mind for such a severe sanction. The court noted the defendant did not provide
precise reasons for refusing to produce the documents and did not attempt to narrow the scope of
61