Tag:Early Conference/Discovery Plan

1
RLI Ins. Co. v. Indian River Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 3112417 (D. Del. Oct. 23, 2007)
2
Kellogg v. Nike, Inc., 2007 WL 4570871 (D. Neb. Dec. 26, 2007)
3
In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litig., 2007 WL 1827635 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2007)
4
Pedroli v. Bartek, 2007 WL 1480967 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2007)
5
Crutcher v. Fidelity Nat’l Ins. Co., 2007 WL 430655 (E.D. La. Feb. 5, 2007)
6
O’Bar v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 2007 WL 1299180 (W.D.N.C. May 2, 2007)
7
RMS Servs.-USA, Inc. v. Houston, 2007 WL 1058923 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 2007)
8
Ky. Speedway, LLC v. Nat’l Ass’n of Stock Car Auto Racing, 2006 WL 5097354 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 18, 2006)
9
Balboa Threadworks, Inc. v. Stucky, 2006 WL 763668 (D. Kan. Mar. 24, 2006)
10
Johnson v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 238 F.R.D. 648 (D. Kan. 2006)

RLI Ins. Co. v. Indian River Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 3112417 (D. Del. Oct. 23, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s untimely motion to re-open discovery and to compel compliance with court?s ?Default Standard for Discovery of Electronic Documents? since plaintiff did not raise or discuss issue of e-discovery during initial conferences nor provide a compelling reason to re-open discovery other than its perceived lack of a significant amount of emails

Nature of Case: Negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Kellogg v. Nike, Inc., 2007 WL 4570871 (D. Neb. Dec. 26, 2007)

Key Insight: Resolving various discovery issues, court found defendants? explanation of document search sufficient and observed that plaintiff could not identify any particular document or category of missing documents based on evidence aside from his own incredulity; court added that, if gaps evolved after defendants’ supplementation of production, plaintiff could revisit the issue

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litig., 2007 WL 1827635 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2007)

Key Insight: Where, at the start of the litigation, parties agreed to production of ESI in a particular format (?TIFF? files subject to a scanning process known as ?OCR?), court declined to compel defendants to comply with amended Rule 34 for future document productions, commenting: ?An amendment to the civil rules-nearly two year after the filing of the lawsuit, and long after the parties established a system for propounding electronic discovery-does not justify the abdication of the parties’ agreement, especially given the security concerns raised by Defendants about maintaining the confidentiality of electronic documents. Of course, if the parties can stipulate to the production of some materials in native electronic format, they are free to do so. Otherwise, the Court orders that production of additional materials shall proceed in accordance with the parties’ prior agreement.?

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified ESI

Pedroli v. Bartek, 2007 WL 1480967 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2007)

Key Insight: Court granted defendants’ expedited motion to suspend requirement for Rule 26(f) conference in light of pending motions to dismiss and provision in Private Securities Litigation Reform Act that provides for automatic stay of discovery and other proceedings in all federal securities fraud actions while motions to dismiss are pending

Nature of Case: Securities litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Rule 26(f) conference

Crutcher v. Fidelity Nat’l Ins. Co., 2007 WL 430655 (E.D. La. Feb. 5, 2007)

Key Insight: Court declared subpoena invalid because requirements of Rule 26(d) apply to subpoenas issued to non-parties, and parties’ written correspondence did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 26(f) to meet, confer, and develop a discovery plan

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Hurricane damage evaluation materials prepared by third party

Balboa Threadworks, Inc. v. Stucky, 2006 WL 763668 (D. Kan. Mar. 24, 2006)

Key Insight: During initial case management conferences, court ordered mirror imaging of all of defendants’ computers and peripheral equipment, e.g., ZIP drives, to be done at plaintiffs’ expense, and ordered parties to meet and confer on appropriate search protocol that would address the issue of protection of attorney client privilege and non-business related personal information which may be located on the computer hard drives

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, fraud and civil conspiracy

Electronic Data Involved: All defendants’ computers and peripheral equipment

Johnson v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 238 F.R.D. 648 (D. Kan. 2006)

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel and overruled defendants’ objections that terms “electronic databases,” “personnel related data,” “database,” “coded fields” and “data dictionaries” were vague and ambiguous, since plaintiffs had attempted to resolve any ambiguity by providing definitions in a separate letter and court’s own guidelines referred to The Sedona Conference? comprehensive glossary of terms related to electronically stored information

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Databases

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.