In Kipperman v. Onex Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44457 (N.D. Ga. May 27, 2009), Senior United States District Court Judge J. Owen Forrester granted plaintiff's motion for sanctions for defendants' failure to meaningfully cooperate and produce relevant electronic discovery.

In Omnicare v. Mariner Health Care Management Co., 2009 Del. Ch. LEXIS 95 (Ct. of Chancery Del. May 29, 2009), Judge John W. Noble denied plaintiff's motion to compel production emails located on backup tapes ruling that defendant must first produce all relevant emails on active stores.

In Kellogg Brown & Root Int'l, Inc. v. Altanmia Comm. Marketing, Co. W.L.L., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44137 (S.D. Tx. May 26, 2009), United States District Court Judge Lee H. Rosenthal denied plaintiff's request for reimbursement of expenses related to backup tape restoration as a recoverable cost for a prevailing party.

In State of Ohio v. Rivas, 121 Ohio St. 3d 469 (S.Ct. Ohio March 31, 2009), the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals reversal of a conviction for the prosecution's failure to provide defendant access to the state's electronic information.

On March 5, 2009, the Supreme Court of Arkansas posted proposed Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 26.1 for public comment. The rule addresses the production of electronic discovery in civil litigation. The Arkansas Bar Association petitioned the court to add the amendment and recommended that the rule apply only where the parties agree or the trial court deems it necessary. To view a copy of the proposed rule, click here.

In Kravetz v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., et. al., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51230 (D. Az. June 11, 2009), U.S. Magistrate Judge Frederick J. Martone granted defendants' motion to compel production of computer hard drives and computer storage media, but limited defendants' review of the devices to certain metadata fields.

In United States v. Albert Gonzalez, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50791 (D. Mass. May 26, 2009), United States District Judge Patti B. Saris issued a Fed. Rule of Crim. Proc. 16(d)(1) order regarding the defendant's use of electronically stored information collected, maintained and produced by the government.  The court's order permits defense counsel to use, inspect and print all e-discovery materials provided by the prosecution provided that the defense takes adequate measure to safe-guard the security of the information.

In Green v. Fluor Corp., 2009 WL 1668376 (M.D. La. June 11, 2009), U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger denied defendants' request to inspect plaintiff's email account and camera phone for a particular photograph. 

In Beard Research, Inc., et. al. v. Kates, et. al., 2009 Del. Ch. LEXIS 94 (Ct. of Chan. Del. May 29, 2009), Vice Chancellor Parsons denied plaintiffs' request for a default judgment, but granted their motion for an adverse inference instruction and attorney's fees.

In Covad Communications Co., v. Revonet, Inc., 2009 WL 1472345 (D.D.C. May 27, 2009), U.S. Magistrate Judge John  M. Facciola issued an order permitting plaintiff's expert to make forensic copies and conduct a search of defendant's electronically stored information.  Defendant was ordered to pay the cost of the forensic copies and the cost of searching through the data.