Post Process

Everything to do with E-discovery & ESI

Archive for the ‘D. Del.’ Category

Case Blurb: Au Optronics Corp., Burden of Proof for Authentication is Slight

Posted by rjbiii on May 18, 2010

The testimony of a subscribing witness is not necessary to authenticate a writing unless required by the laws of the jurisdiction whose laws govern the validity of the writing.” Fed. R. Evid. 903. Authentication by circumstantial evidence, in lieu of testimony, is permissible. McQueeny v. Wilmington Trust Company, 779 F.2d 916, 928 (1985). Circumstantial evidence that may be considered includes, but is not limited to, the source of the document, its appearance, content, substance, internal pattern, distinctive characteristics, and its age. Fed. R. Evid. 901. “The burden of proof for authentication is slight. ‘All that is required is a foundation from which the fact-finder could legitimately infer that the evidence is what the proponent claims it to be.'” McQueeny, 779 F.2d at 928 (citations omitted).

In this case, the Court concludes that AUO has met its burden of authenticating the documents in question…

LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Au Optronics Corp., 265 F.R.D. 189, 196 (D. Del. 2010)

Posted in 3d Circuit, Authentication, Case Blurbs, D. Del., FRE 901, Judge Joseph A. Farnan Jr. | Leave a Comment »

Case Summary: Quintus Corp.; Court grants default judgment in b/r trial where defendant was found to have destroyed evidence

Posted by rjbiii on September 6, 2007

In a bankruptcy trial where defendant had destroyed electronic files, evidence that “went to the heart of the Trustee’s suit,” for the purpose of clearing more drive space; where defendant had breached a contract and therefore knew that the files would be relevant to potential litigation, the court ruled that judgment should be entered in favor of the Trustee for all claims listed in the Debtors’ b/r schedules and on the claims register. Trustee’s motion seeking attorneys’ fees as well was denied because the court granted a more severe sanction. In re Quintus Corp. v. Avaya, Inc., 353 B.R. 77 (Bkrtcy. D. Del. 2006).

Posted in 3d Circuit, Bankruptcy Judge Mary A. Walrath, Case Summary, D. Del., Data Management, Document Retention, Duty to Preserve, Sanctions, Spoliation | Leave a Comment »

Case Blurb; Quintus Corp.; Appropriateness of Default Judgment as Sanction

Posted by rjbiii on August 31, 2007

Judgment is [an] appropriate sanction where destruction of documents deprives adversary of critical evidence. In re Quintus Corp. v. Avaya, Inc., 353 B.R. 77 (Bkrtcy. D. Del. 2006) (citing Shepherd v. Am. Broad. Cos., F.3d 1469, 1479 (D.C. Cir. 1995)).

Posted in 3d Circuit, Bankruptcy Judge Mary A. Walrath, Case Blurbs, D. Del., Default Judgment, Duty to Preserve, Sanctions, Spoliation | Leave a Comment »

Case Blurb: Quintus Corp.; Testing prejudice from destruction of documents

Posted by rjbiii on August 30, 2007

In determining the prejudice suffered as a result of destruction documents, the court should “examine the materiality and value of the suppressed evidence upon the ability of [the movant] to fully and fairly prepare for trial. In re Quintus Corp. v. Avaya, Inc., 353 B.R. 77, 83 (Bkrtcy. D. Del. 2006) (citing Shamis v. Ambassador Factors Corp., F.3d 1469, 1479 (D.C. Cir. 1995)).

Posted in 3d Circuit, Bankruptcy Judge Mary A. Walrath, D. Del., Sanctions, Spoliation | Leave a Comment »

Case Blurb: Quintus Corp., Debtor’s failure to comply with Agreement triggers duty to Preserve

Posted by rjbiii on August 28, 2007

Debtor should have anticipated litigation over its failure to comply with an Asset Purchase Agreement, therefore should not have destroyed electronic files relevant to the litigation. In re Quintus Corp. v. Avaya, Inc., 2006 WL 307982 (Bkrtcy. D. Del. 2006).

Posted in 3d Circuit, Case Blurbs, D. Del., Duty to Preserve, Reasonable Anticipation of Litigation | Leave a Comment »

Case Blurb: Quintus Corp, selective preservation of documents prohibited

Posted by rjbiii on August 28, 2007

A party cannot selectively preserve “relevant documents and only present those that it finds favorable to its case, at a time when if finds it convenient. In re Quintus Corp. v. Avaya, Inc., 2006 WL 307982 (Bkrtcy. D. Del. 2006) (citing Shamis v. Ambassador Factors Corp., F.3d 879, 890 (D.C. Cir. 1995)).

Posted in 3d Circuit, Case Blurbs, D. Del., Document Retention, Duty to Preserve | Leave a Comment »

Case Blurb: Quintus Corp., Test for spoliation

Posted by rjbiii on August 28, 2007

Inquiry is whether the party destroying documents “knew or should have known that the destroyed evidence was relevant to pending, imminent or reasonably foreseeable litigation.” In re Quintus Corp. v. Avaya, Inc., 2006 WL 307982 (Bkrtcy. D. Del. 2006) (citing Shamis v. Ambassador Factors Corp., F.3d 1469, 1479 (D.C. Cir. 1995)).

Posted in 3d Circuit, Case Blurbs, D. Del., Duty to Preserve, Spoliation | Leave a Comment »

Case Blurb: Quintus Corp., Trigger of Duty to Preserve

Posted by rjbiii on August 28, 2007

The duty to preserve material evidence arises not only during litigation but also extends to that period before the litigation when a party reasonably should know that the evidence may be relevant to anticipated litigation. In re Quintus Corp. v. Avaya, Inc., 353 B.R. 77, (Bkrtcy. D. Del. 2006) (citing Silvestri v. General Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583, 591 (4th Cir. 2001)).

Posted in 3d Circuit, Case Blurbs, D. Del., Duty to Preserve | Leave a Comment »