According to published reports, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and his former chief of staff Christine Beatty continue to deny an intimate relationship as more damaging text messages between the two are released to the public.  Many of the emails sent in 2002 and 2003 allegedly provide further evidence that the two discussed their intimate relationship, possible marriage and the forced ouster of a police officer investigating the pair. In a September 2002 message, Beatty wrote, "I have wanted to hold you so badly all day, but I was trying to stay focused on work. So, I promise, not to keep you longer than 15 minutes."  On April 8, 2003, she wrote, "You told me that you would be my boyfriend every day until I was your wife." In another message later that month she calls Kilpatrick an "amazing man" and writes that "everything about you makes me love you."

 In In re Krause, 2008 WL 1805508 (Bkrtcy.D.Kan. April 21, 2008), the bankruptcy court entered judgment in favor of the Government after finding that Gary Krause engaged in a "decades-long scheme" to keep all of his assets out of his own name while enjoying the benefits of those assets, including wiping computer hard drives. Early in the course of discovery, the Government served requests for production of documents on Krause seeking information residing on Krause's computers.  Krause failed to respond and the court issued an order compelling Krause to turnover the actual computers for inspection.  During the inspection, the Government learned that Krause had loaded and operated a wiping software program to permanently destroy or erase electronic information.  The court found that Krause willfully destroyed electronic evidence and assessed sanctions against him, including partial default judgment.  In addition, the judge threatened to hold Krause in contempt if he failed to produce other electronic information in his control.

In Mikron Indus., Inc. v. Hurd Windows & Doors, Inc., 2008 WL 1805727 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 21, 2008), the court rejected defendants' claims that searching through their electronically stored information ("ESI") would be unduly burdensome and produce cumulative results.  Defendants filed a motion for protective order asking the court to shift the costs of defendants' remaining electronic discovery obligation to plaintiff.  The court denied the motion finding that defendants failed to meet and confer in good faith as required by FRCP 26(c).  The court, considering the matter on the merits, further found that defendants did not meet their burden of demonstrating that the requested information was unduly burdensome or cumulative under Rule 26(b)(2)(B).  The court explained, "Defendants offer little evidence beyond a cost estimate and conclusory characterizations of their ESI as ‘inaccessible.'"  Defendants also failed to demonstrate any actual hardship beyond that which ordinarily accompanies the discovery process.

The New Jersey Supreme Court held that a valid subpoena is required to seek disclosure of private subscriber information from an Internet Service Provider ("ISP").  In State of New Jersey v. Shirley Reid (A-105-06, April 21, 2008), defendant's employer used a sham subpoena to obtain information from Comcast. The resulting information confirmed the company's suspicion that the defendant had changed the username and password for the company's website.  The company turned the information over to police who arrested the defendant.  She was indicted and charged with second-degree computer theft.  In granting her motion to suppress the ISP information, the court ruled that a criminal grand jury subpoena was required because an indictable offense was at issue.  However, nothing bars the prosecutor from obtaining a grand jury subpoena and pursuing another indictment. To review the case, click here.

In State of Texas v. City of Frisco, 2008 WL 828055 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2008), the court dismissed as "not ripe for adjudication", plaintiff's request for a declaratory judgment that the defendant's letter seeking the preservation of documents relating to potential litigation violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

According to CNN, the Federal Communications Commission is expected to announce a nationwide alert system that will use cell phones or other mobile devices to send text messages to Americans during a widespread disaster, severe weather, child abduction or other emergency.

There's an old saying that long case titles make good law.  Well, we can add to the list the case of Autotech Technologies Limited Partnership v. Automationdirect.com, 2008 WL 902957 (N.D. Ill. April. 2, 2008).

In Alexander v. F.B.I, 2008 WL 903115 (D.D.C. April 3, 2008), district court held that neither the White House nor its counsel acted in bad faith or engaged in any obstruction of justice related to missing and deleted emails.  The court's ruling followed an evidentiary hearing to determine the veracity of statements regarding the storage and archival of emails in the White House's automated records management system.  It turned out that some emails were not archived due to a "coding error" by a private contractor.  The error was subsequently corrected, but the White House Counsel's office did not understand the extent of the problem.  The court held that the mistaken testimony was due to lack of familiarity with computer terminology and a failure to understand the White House's computer specialist.  The court found no evidence of any deliberate effort to conceal the truth from the plaintiffs or the court.

The White House email debacle continues in Alexander v. F.B.I., 2008 WL 879296 (D.D.C. March 31, 2008). In addition to denying plaintiffs' motions for orders to show cause regarding discovery disputes as to electronic information requested from the White House, the court also denied plaintiffs' motion to depose the former first lady Hilary Rodham Clinton.

In U & I Corp. v. Advanced Medical Design, Inc., 2008 W.L. 821993 (M.D. Fl. March 26, 2008), plaintiff, a medical equipment company based in Korea, blamed its failure to preserve and produce documents on "confusion, software formatting, language barriers and understanding of the U.S. legal system."  The court was not moved and held that plaintiff failed to show a substantial justification for its failure and unwillingness to abide by court orders and the rules of discovery. The court noted, "It is not the court's role, nor that of opposing counsel, to drag a party kicking and screaming through the discovery process."