Thomas v. IEM, Inc., 2008 WL 695230 (M.D. La. Mar. 12, 2008)
Key Insight: Where plaintiff wrongly served Rule 45 subpoena on defendant in attempt to avoid discovery deadline, and subpoena was not limited in terms of time or subject matter but simply requested all emails contained in designated individuals’ in-boxes as of a particular date, and defendant set forth detailed account of burden and specific estimate of staff hours and cost that would be expended to comply with subpoena, court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant’s compliance with subpoena
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination and retaliation
Electronic Data Involved: Entire electronic mailboxes of key players