K&L Gates Electronic Discovery Case Database

Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP (K&L Gates) maintains and continually updates a database containing over 900 electronic discovery cases collected from state and federal jurisdictions around the United States.

This database is searchable by keyword, as well as by any combination of 28 different case attributes, e.g., on-site inspection, allegations of spoliation, motion for a preservation order, etc. Each search will produce a list of relevant cases, including a brief description of the nature and disposition of each case, the electronic evidence involved and a link to a more detailed case summary if available.

This database supplements the electronic discovery law blog maintained by the firm at ediscoverylaw.com. The blog is dedicated to legal issues, news and best practices relating to discovery of electronic stored information published by the e-Discovery Analysis and Technology Group at K&L Gates.

E-Discovery Case Database
electronic discovery law blog (ediscoverylaw.com)

Article: Where Do the Footprints of Metadata Lead?

The National Law Journal features an excellent article published on Law.com, that provides an overview of legal and ethical issues concerning metadata. In addition to explaining what metadata is, the article briefly examines how one finds it as well as the ethics of mining for it.

The article is at the link below.

Where Do the Footprints of Metadata Lead?

consumer protection - assignee liability

Colanzi v. Countrywide Homes Loans - ED Pa. - February 22, 2008

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/08D0209P.pdf

The assignee of an allegedly improper mortgage loan is not liable for the alleged wrongful acts of the originator of the loan, where there is no allegation of any specific wrongful acts on the part of the assignee. "While the [consumer protection] statute 'provides that consumers may sue a seller of goods or services who commits an unfair trade practice, it does not impose liability on parties who have not themselves committed any wrongdoing. Williams v. Natl Sch. of Health Tech, 836 F.Supp. 273, 283 (E.D. Pa. 1993)." None of the alleged wrongful actions could be imputed to the defendant.

federal courts - pleading - Rules 8(a)(2) and 12(b)(6)

Phillips v. County of Allegheny - Third Circuit - February 5, 2008

http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062869p.pdf

This case discusses the change in long-established pleading standards, resulting from the Supreme Court's decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). Prior to Twombly, the courts had applied the "no set of facts" language and held that a "complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-6 (1957).

The Third Circuit found "two new concepts in Twombly" involving a discussion of the language of Rule 8 http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule8.htm that a complaint has to contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." The Court said that this required a 'showing' rather than a blanket assertion of entitled to relief" and required the pleading of factual allegations that were "enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." A "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do."

Second, the Twombly Court "disavowed certain language that it had used many times before --the "no set of facts" language from Conley...It is clear that the 'no set of facts' language may no longer be used as part of the Rule 12(b)(6) [http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule12.htm] standard...'This phrase is best forgotten as an incomplete, negative gloss on an accepted pleading standard: once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be support by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint.'" The Third Circuit found that "these two aspects of the decision are intended to apply to the Rule 12(b)(6) standard in general."

The Third Circuit also noted that

- while the requirment of a "showing" is new, the Supreme Court also expressly reaffirmed that Rule 8 requires only a short and plain statement of the claim and its grounds. "Whether and to what extent that 'showing' requires allegations of act will depend on the particulars of the claim." Context will be all-important.

- the Twombly court was "careful to base its analysis on pre-existing principles...The Court emphasized throughout its opinion that it was neither demanding a heightened pleading of specifics nor imposing a probability requirement....Thus, under our reading, the notice pleading standard of Rule 8(a)(2) remains intact, and courts may generally state and apply the Rule 12(b)(6) standard, attentive to context and a showing that 'the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the...claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'"

- like other courts, the Third Circuit found the Twombly decision "confusing" and said that it would "likely be a source of controversy for years to come."

- Twombly may involve a new "plausibility requirement" and require rejection of claims in the there a "mere metaphysical possibility" of a plaintiff proving some facts to support the claim

The court summarized by saying that "all of the foregoing discussion can be reduced to this proposition: Rule 8(a)(2) has it right....This rule requires not merely a short and plain statement, but instead mandates a statement 'showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.' That is to say, there must be some showing sufficient to justify moving the case 'beyond the pleadings to the next stage of litigation."

state appellate procedure - Rule 1925(b) - statement of errors complained of - waiver - quantity of issues

Eiser v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. - Pa. Supreme Court - December 28, 2007

plurality (3) http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-22-2007oajpdf
concurring (2) http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-22-2007co.pdf
dissent -Castille http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-22-2007do1pdf
dissent - Eakin http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-22-2007do2pdf

Pa. R.A. P. 1925(b) requires an appellant to file and serve on the trial judge a "concise statement of the errors complained of on appeal," where the judge "desires clarification of the errors complained of" and enters an order directing the appellant to prepare such a statement. http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/210/chapter19/s1925.html

As the plurality noted, this rule has been discussed in a "myriad [of] recent decisions...which reach varying conclusions.....[T]here is much consternation in the courts of this Commonwealth related to where lies the outer limit of the number of issues" an appellant may raise under this rule." The process under Rule 1925(b) "has turned into a maelstrom in recent years....."

This case does little to "clarify and quell the consternation," especially given the questionable precedential value of plurality opinions. Bilt-Rite Contractors, Inc. v. The Architectural Studio, 581 Pa. 454; 866 A.2d 270, 275 n. 2 (Pa. 2005).

In this case, the appellants filed a 15-page statement containing 24 separately-numbered issues, some of which contained sub-issues. The trial court wrote an 85-page opinion in the case, which had a "complicated and voluminous record" and in which four judges had issued rulings. The trial and Superior Courts held that appellants had waived their right to appellate review as to 6 of 8 issues they had raised and not voluntarily abandoned on appeal.

Plurality opinion - no per se rule - presumption of good faith
The plurality "instruct[ed] lower courts to address, on the merits, all issues raised in good faith....This standard provides, where necessary, a familiar tool to assess the basis for the issues raised." The plurality also stated that "the number of issues raised in the Rule 1925(b) statement cannot by itself provide a basis for finding waiver....In sum, the number of issues raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement does not, without more, provide a basis upon which to deny appellate review where an appeal otherwise complies with the mandates of appellate practice....There is a presumption that an attorney licensed to practice law in this Commonwealth, who acts as an officer of the court system, has acted in good faith upon signing a document filed with the court." The court "encourage[d] lower courts to recognize that on rare occasions a party may, in good faith, believe that a large number of issues are worthy of pursuing on appeal." (emphasis added)

Saylor, J., concurring - The justice noted his disagreement with a "strict waiver approach" and opposition to any expansion of that doctrine. He thought that the trial and intermediate appellate courts "had reasonable alternatives short of the drastic sanction of outright dismissal to address the apparent lack of conciseness in the statement."

Castille, J., dissenting - The dissenting justice noted that the trial and Superior Court orders were issue-specific and had held that 2 of the 8 matters complained of were "susceptible of meaningful review.....In short, appellants were afforded appellate review, but that review was restricted." The justice criticized the Court's finding of appellants' good faith, noting that it was "not a court of record with fact-finding capacity or function." He said that the lower court decisions were the "natural result of appellants' own Rule 1925(b) conduct," that "appellants took no action to protect their interests," and that the plurality overlooked appellants' lapses. He thought that the result of the plurality opinion would be "the filing of prolix statements as of right, without leave or explanation" and was a solution that would "reward...litigants who primarily have themselves to blame for their dilemmas."

Eakin, J., dissenting - The justice felt that the 1925(b) statement impeded rather than aided the trial judge in writing an opinion. "There comes a point when too much is simply too much."

disability - credibility - medical sources - findings and reasons

Echols v. Astrue - ED Pa. - January 31, 2008

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/08D0141P.pdf

Case remanded because of improper determination about claimant's credibility and the other errors listed below.

The ALJ erred in crediting evidence from one source about claimant's credibility but rejecting evidence from the same source about claimant's RFC, without explaining this inherent contradiction. In making findings about credibility and other issues, findings, the ALJ must indicate in his decision which evidence he has rejected and which he is relying, as well as the reasons for choosing one over the other, so that the court can assess whether significant probative evidence was credited or ignored. Schaudeck v. Commr., 181 F.3d 429, 433 (3d Cir. 1999).

GAF - acceptable medical source - SSR 06-3p allows the opinion of an other-than "acceptable medical source" to outweigh that of an "acceptable medical source." Here a AMS set the GAF at 57 but an other than AMS (a masters level clinician and licensed clinician) found it to be 45. The ALJ did not explain his preference for the AMS's opinion. In addition, the defendant commissioner improperly gave a reason for the decision that was not included in the ALJ decision. Defendant may not substitute its reasons for that of the ALJ’s. See Fargnoli v. Halter, 247 F.3d 34, 44 n.7 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 87 (1943) (“[T]he grounds upon which an administrative order must be judged are those upon which the record discloses that its action was based”)).

claimant's credibility - findings and reasons - The ALJ did not explain why/how he found some of claimant's statements credible and others not credible. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. at 87; Fargnoli, 247 F.3d at 44 n.7. The ALJ’s failure to indicate clearly in his credibility finding which of Plaintiff’s statements he credited, which he found were not supported by the medical record, and why, leaves the court unable to assess properly whether significant probative evidence was credited or ignored. See Schaudeck, 181 F.3d at 433.

RFC formulation - In determining the RFC, the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence. Fargnoli, 247 F.3d at 41. “That evidence includes medical records, observations made during formal medical examinations, descriptions of limitations by the claimant and others, and observations of the claimant’s limitations by others.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)). The ALJ’s RFC finding must provide a clear and satisfactory explanation of its basis but did not do so here.

VE opinion - The errors listed above also made the VE hypothetical improper. After correcting errors in the ALJ’s credibility and RFC determinations on remand, the ALJ must present a complete hypothetical to the VE and consider any VE opinion that encompasses all limitations found to exist.

consumer protection - title insurance - fraudulent OR deceptive conduct

Alberton, et al. v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co. - ED Pa. - January 31, 2008

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/08D0133P.pdf

The court certified a class of consumer who had purchased title insurance from defendant within 10 years of a prior purchase of title insurance. The court said that "[i]n doing so, it joins a growing list of courts around the country that have certified similar classes of insurance purchasers bringing similar cases against insurance sellers and arising from practices nearly identical to the sales practices challenged here."

Title insurance is regulated by the Pennsylvania Title Act, 40 P.S. 910-1 et seq., and the Title Insurance Rating Bureau Manual (Manual), which establishes a mandatory 3-tier pricing structure - basic, reissue, and refinance. The named plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to the lowest rate (refinance) but was charged the higher reissue rate, which cost him $234.08 more.

Plaintiff sued under various causes of action (contract, UTPCPL, fraudulent misrepresentation, etc. etc.) who elements differed "but each turns on the question of whether plaintiff was required to request a discounted rate and produced evidence showing his entitlement to that rate when he purchases title insurance from Commonwealth; or whether Commonwealth should have automatically offered plaintiff discounted rate upon learning, through the title search, that he had refinanced in the [recent] past," thus entitling him to a discount.

Of particular note was the court's discussion of the UTPCPL claim, in the context of Rule 23(b)'s requirement that common questions of law/fact predominate over individual questions. The court said that

A plaintiff seeking to recover under the UTPCPL once was required to prove all the elements of common law fraud; however, a 1996 amendment made the law “less restrictive.”9 Commonwealth v. Percudani, 825 A.2d 743, 747 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). Plaintiffs must now show conduct that is “deceptive to the ordinary consumer,” but need not prove all the elements of fraud.10 Id. at 746. Thus, individualized proof of justifiable reliance is no longer required to succeed on a claim under the UTPCPL. Instead, “[a] policy of not applying published insurance rates, if proven, would satisfy the requirement of a deceptive practice under the UTPCPL.” Cohen, 242 F.R.D. at 301. Because plaintiffs can succeed as a class by showing Commonwealth’s policy rather than individual reliance, common questions predominate on this claim.

9 Section 202-2(4)(xxi) now prohibits “engaging in any other fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.” 73 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 202-2(4)(xxi)..... Prior to 1996, the section addressed only “fraudulent,” not “deceptive,” conduct.....

10 Pennsylvania courts are divided as to the import of the 1996 amendment to the UTPCPL: the superior courts continue to require plaintiffs under the UTPCPL to prove all the elements of common law fraud whereas the Commonwealth court has abandoned that requirement. See Com. ex rel. Corbett v. Mason, 903 A.2d 69, 74 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (recognizing split among Pennsylvania courts). The Commonwealth court reasons that “(1) the statute is to be liberally construed to effectuate the legislative goal of consumer protection; (2) the legislature’s addition of the words ‘or deceptive’ signals a less restrictive interpretation; and (3) maintaining the pre-1996 requirement would render the words ‘or deceptive conduct’ redundant and superfluous, contrary to the rules of statutory construction.” Id. Other federal courts that have considered the effect of the 1996 amendment have agreed with the Commonwealth court’s conclusion. See, e.g., Cohen, 242 F.R.D. 295; Flores v. Shapiro & Kreisman, 246 F. Supp. 2d 427, 432 (E.D. Pa. 2002) (holding that, to survive a motion to dismiss, plaintiff seeking relief under UTPCPL need allege only that conduct was deceptive; all six elements of common law fraud are not necessary); In re Patterson, 263 B.R. 82, 91-92 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2001). Persuaded by the reasoning of the Commonwealth court and these federal courts, this Court also concludes that the addition of “deceptive” conduct to the UTPCPL signals the legislature’s intent that plaintiffs proceeding under the UTPCPL no longer be required to establish the elements of common law fraud.

The Title Insurance statute is also discussed in the recent ED Pa. case of Markocki v. Old Republic National Title Insurance Company http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D1382P.pdf

real property - judicial sale - petition to set aside - due process rights of owner

Fulton v. Bedford County Tax Claim Bureau - Commonwealth Court - January 31, 2008

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/1302CD07_1-31-08.pdf

A person who holds legal title to property which he purchased at a judicial sale is an indispensable party to and has a due process right to get notice of and take part in the prior owner's subsequent petition to set aside the judicial sale because of alleged lack of notice. The lower court erred in denying the purchaser's petition to intervene in the proceedings on the prior owner's petition.

The purchaser was more than just a successful bidder at a tax upset sale, but rather held title to the property as owner, after title passed first to the taxing bureau as trustee, which then conveyed its title to purchaser, who became the legal title holder. "As legal owner, Purchaser is entitled to due process before title to the Property may be transferred to another....To that end, appellate courts consistently hold property owners are indispensable parties to lawsuits affecting their property rights."