• CIVIL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

S. New Eng. Tel. Co. v. Global NAPs, Inc.

Court orders party to pay over five million dollars in default judgment due to willful disregard for discovery process

In this ongoing discovery battle, the plaintiff sought default judgment sanctions alleging the defendants failed to comply with discovery orders. Detailing the lawsuit's long history of discovery issues, the court cited several factors that justified the imposition of default judgment, noting the defendants' behavior exemplified the type of "willful disregard for the process of discovery" that warrants dismissal. The factors cited included: willful violation of court order to produce general ledgers; use of wiping software to intentionally destroy evidence, as determined by the plaintiff's computer forensic expert; lying to the court about the ability to obtain documents from third parties; misleading answers to discovery requests; and the defendants' long history of violating discovery orders. Determining the defendants committed a fraud upon the court, the court ordered them to pay judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $5,247,781.45, in addition to costs and fees of $645,760.41.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Peskoff v. Faber

Court denies cost-shifting argument citing responding party's insufficient discovery efforts, which caused need for forensic investigation

In the present case, the court considered whether the burden or expense of forensic examination should be shifted to the requesting party. Finding the defendant's inadequate search efforts, failure to preserve electronically stored information and overall unwillingness to take "discovery obligations seriously" caused the need for a forensic examination, the court refused to shift costs since the problem was one of the defendant's "own making."

• CRIMINAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

United States v. Giberson

Court holds seizure of computer within scope of search warrant for records reasonably likely to be stored on the computer

In this criminal conviction appeal, the appellant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress incriminating evidence found on his computer. The computer was seized via a search warrant for documents and records relating to child support obligation failures, and was forensically searched under a warrant for evidence of fraudulent activities. The appellant argued that the general principle that a search warrant for materials authorizes the search of objects that may contain those materials should not apply to computers because computers contain an enormous volume of data, likely to contain irrelevant personal data, and likely to contain First Amendment-protected data. The court held that a search warrant describing a document reasonably likely to be contained on a computer authorizes the seizure of that computer. Subsequently, the court upheld the trial court's decision not to suppress the computer evidence and the appellant's conviction.

• SERVICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Pederson v. Preston

Court upholds assertion of privilege absent demonstration of bad faith

In this employment discrimination litigation, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery arguing that the defendant's responses to a number of interrogatories were insufficient and the defendant improperly asserted attorney-client privilege. The defendant objected arguing that the plaintiff's production requests were vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The defendant also defended its assertion of attorney-client and work-product privilege by noting that the plaintiff had not specifically objected to any claim of privilege provided in the defendant's privilege log. After analyzing each disputed interrogatory for relevancy and undue burden, the court granted the motion in part and denied in part. The court also agreed with the defendant's privilege argument, holding that the defendant's attorney-client privilege assertion would be sustained absent evidence that it was made in bad faith.

• INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

UK HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Lucasfilm Ltd and others v. Andrew Ainsworth and another

Multi-jurisdictional Copyright Infringement

The claimant production and licensing companies behind the original Star Wars films brought copyright action against the defendants for the production of replica star wars uniforms. As the uniforms in issue could not be described as either sculptures or works of artistic craftsmanship, and furthermore had been exploited on an industrial scale, they were not amenable to copyright protection in the UK. The claimants also failed in their passing off and reverse passing off action. The default judgment obtained against the defendants in the US was not enforceable, as they had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the US courts. The Court did, however, find it was right to determine the US copyright claim as the defendant infringed claimant's rights under UK Copyright laws.