Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
e-Discovery Docket Sheet
Defendant Ordered to Produce Data in
Native Format With Original Metadata
In a patent-infringement case, the plaintiffs sought to compel production of documents in native format with original metadata. The plaintiffs asserted that native-production format was mandated by a local patent rule that required a party defending a patent-infringement claim to make available '[s]ource code, specifications, schematics, flow charts, artwork, formulas, or other documentation ' ' Finding that the defendants had failed to offer relevant reasons why the documents should not be produced in their native format, the court granted the motion and ordered the defendants to 'produce the documents in their native file format, with original metadata.' The court further declared that the document-production set 'shall be separately identified by Bates numbers to correspond to each aspect or element of each accused instrumentality identified in [the defendant's patent] chart.' Nova Measuring Instruments Ltd. v. Nanometrics, Inc., 417 F.Supp.2d 1121, 2006 WL 524708 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2006).
Court Denies Plaintiff's Untimely
Motion To Compel e-Document Production
Alleging wrongful termination from employment, the plaintiff moved to compel production of documents previously scanned onto three CDs and produced by the defendants. Stating that this production was not 'kept in any perceivable sequential order,' the plaintiff claimed that it did not comply with the 'usual course of business' requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b). Agreeing with the plaintiff, the court found it 'clear that the documents produced by [the defendants] were not produced 'as they are kept in the usual course of business.” According to the court, the production was problematic as 'a receiving party may not be able to determine which specific images comprise a single document or attachments to a document since there are no staples which bind together the scanned images as they would hard copies in a file.' The court noted that other courts had required a producing party to label, organize or index electronic documents to make them usable by a requesting party. Methods referenced by the court included: 1) noting which documents were produced from electronic files and which were scanned from hard-copy files; 2) maintaining multi-page documents as a unit; and 3) providing source information to identify document custodians. Nevertheless, the court denied the plaintiff's motion, based on the plaintiff's failure to file the motion in a timely manner. Bergersen v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 2006 WL 334675 (D. Kan. Feb. 14, 2006).
Magistrate Upholds Order For
Forensic Review Of Non-party's Systems
The respondents, a non-party subpoenaed by the defendant, petitioned for a certificate of interlocutory appeal and sought to stay enforcement of a magistrate's order allowing the defendant to conduct a forensic review of the respondents' computer systems. The reviewing magistrate found the issue was not ripe for appeal and that the respondents had waived any appeal rights by failing to raise the issue in their initial appeal. The court declared that the enforcement orders took 'every measure to protect' the respondents because the defendant was bearing discovery costs and discovery was to be conducted on an 'attorneys-eyes-only' basis. The court also noted that the attorney-client privilege was not compromised because the respondents' counsel would have access to the master data and an opportunity to create a privilege log. The reviewing magistrate stated that: 'Respondents have complained throughout this proceeding of the burden being imposed on them. Instead of lessening that burden by cooperating in discovery, they have fought a Stalingrad defense costing untold thousands of dollars in attorney fees and providing increased evidence that they have something to hide.' Electrolux Home Prods., Inc. v. Whitesell Corp., 2006 WL 355453 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 15, 2006).
e-Discovery Docket Sheet and Computer Forensics Docket Sheet were written by Michele C.S. Lange, a staff attorney with Kroll Ontrack, with assistance from Charity Delich, a Kroll Ontrack law clerk. Lange has published numerous articles and speaks regularly on the topics of electronic discovery, computer forensics and technology's role in the law. Information in these summaries is taken from the Kroll Ontrack monthly E-Discovery Case Law Update and Computer Forensics newsletters, which may be accessed at www.krollontrack.com. Lange is a member of e-Discovery Law & Strategy's Board of Editors. She can be reached at [email protected].
Defendant Ordered to Produce Data in
Native Format With Original Metadata
In a patent-infringement case, the plaintiffs sought to compel production of documents in native format with original metadata. The plaintiffs asserted that native-production format was mandated by a local patent rule that required a party defending a patent-infringement claim to make available '[s]ource code, specifications, schematics, flow charts, artwork, formulas, or other documentation ' ' Finding that the defendants had failed to offer relevant reasons why the documents should not be produced in their native format, the court granted the motion and ordered the defendants to 'produce the documents in their native file format, with original metadata.' The court further declared that the document-production set 'shall be separately identified by Bates numbers to correspond to each aspect or element of each accused instrumentality identified in [the defendant's patent] chart.'
Court Denies Plaintiff's Untimely
Motion To Compel e-Document Production
Alleging wrongful termination from employment, the plaintiff moved to compel production of documents previously scanned onto three CDs and produced by the defendants. Stating that this production was not 'kept in any perceivable sequential order,' the plaintiff claimed that it did not comply with the 'usual course of business' requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b). Agreeing with the plaintiff, the court found it 'clear that the documents produced by [the defendants] were not produced 'as they are kept in the usual course of business.” According to the court, the production was problematic as 'a receiving party may not be able to determine which specific images comprise a single document or attachments to a document since there are no staples which bind together the scanned images as they would hard copies in a file.' The court noted that other courts had required a producing party to label, organize or index electronic documents to make them usable by a requesting party. Methods referenced by the court included: 1) noting which documents were produced from electronic files and which were scanned from hard-copy files; 2) maintaining multi-page documents as a unit; and 3) providing source information to identify document custodians. Nevertheless, the court denied the plaintiff's motion, based on the plaintiff's failure to file the motion in a timely manner. Bergersen v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 2006 WL 334675 (D. Kan. Feb. 14, 2006).
Magistrate Upholds Order For
Forensic Review Of Non-party's Systems
The respondents, a non-party subpoenaed by the defendant, petitioned for a certificate of interlocutory appeal and sought to stay enforcement of a magistrate's order allowing the defendant to conduct a forensic review of the respondents' computer systems. The reviewing magistrate found the issue was not ripe for appeal and that the respondents had waived any appeal rights by failing to raise the issue in their initial appeal. The court declared that the enforcement orders took 'every measure to protect' the respondents because the defendant was bearing discovery costs and discovery was to be conducted on an 'attorneys-eyes-only' basis. The court also noted that the attorney-client privilege was not compromised because the respondents' counsel would have access to the master data and an opportunity to create a privilege log. The reviewing magistrate stated that: 'Respondents have complained throughout this proceeding of the burden being imposed on them. Instead of lessening that burden by cooperating in discovery, they have fought a Stalingrad defense costing untold thousands of dollars in attorney fees and providing increased evidence that they have something to hide.' Electrolux Home Prods., Inc. v. Whitesell Corp., 2006 WL 355453 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 15, 2006).
e-Discovery Docket Sheet and Computer Forensics Docket Sheet were written by Michele C.S. Lange, a staff attorney with Kroll Ontrack, with assistance from Charity Delich, a Kroll Ontrack law clerk. Lange has published numerous articles and speaks regularly on the topics of electronic discovery, computer forensics and technology's role in the law. Information in these summaries is taken from the Kroll Ontrack monthly E-Discovery Case Law Update and Computer Forensics newsletters, which may be accessed at www.krollontrack.com. Lange is a member of e-Discovery Law & Strategy's Board of Editors. She can be reached at [email protected].
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Warehouse Liability: Know Before You Stow!
As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.