Here I go with my latest summary of lead cases I think are of interest.  When it comes to electronic devices that might be subject to e-discovery, I thought I'd thought of everything.  I was wrong…

Ford Motor Co. v. Edgewood Properties, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42001 (D.N.J. May 18, 2009)

USE IT OR LOSE IT – This is a classic example of where technical minds weren't properly involved from the outset of litigation and that lack of involvement resulted in a waiver.  The Defendant properly sought production of documents in native format with metadata intact.  The problem is, Plaintiff complied by delivering the documents in TIFF format.  Plaintiff waited six months to request the data again in native format and another two months to make a motion before the court.  The court deemed eight months too long and as a result, ruled Defendant waived its right to receive the documents in native format.

I admit I'm inserting my opinion here, but let's face it; the incoming data should have gone straight to a technical mind for immediate analysis.  A cursory review would have discovered the issue and Defendant could have addressed it within a reasonable time.  On the other hand, if Defendant knew about the issue and was simply tardy in addressing it, shame on them.

McGarry v. Becher, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40879 (S.D. Ind. May 13, 2009)

"DON'T TASE ME, BRO!!!" – This potential class-action criminal case may be summed up in one sentence.  The court ruled that memory from tasers is both discoverable and not burdensome on the Defendant.  Add tasers to your list of electronic devices!

1100 West v. Red Spot Paint and Varnish Co., 1:05-cv-1670-LJM-JMS (S.D. Ill. June 5, 2009)

KHARMA CHAMELEON – Don't waste any more time here.  Go directly to Ralph Losey's blog, e-Discovery Team (do not pass go and do not collect $200) and read his treatise on this case; the best post about attorney ethics – or lack thereof – I've seen in a long time!