Key Insight: Court denied motion for expedited discovery to image defendants? and third parties? computers pursuant to Rule 45 where inspection sought evidence of defamation unrelated to plaintiff?s claims of fraud in connections with the sale of securities and other related fraud
Nature of Case: Securities fraud
Electronic Data Involved: Email, backup tapes, removable storage units
Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs? motion to for leave to take expedited discovery from defendants? internet service providers (two universities) for purpose of identifying Doe defendants where information sought was necessary for continued prosecution of the litigation and where narrowly tailored requests would reduce if not eliminate any prejudice to defendants; court limited discovery to defendants? directory information and MAC (media access control) addresses and provided defendants opportunity to object
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: ISP directory information, MAC addresses
Key Insight: Where a university responded to a subpoena seeking ?all documents and electronically-stored information relating to the assignment of the IP addresses? of unidentified, suspected copyright infringers by producing file logs identifying the dorm rooms associated with the IP addresses at issue and the MAC addresses of the devices used to access the internet, but where it could not provide the names to which the addresses were assigned because the rooms were shared, court denied motion to compel based on specific language of subpoena but permitted service of a third subpoena specifically seeking names of the residents of each room at issue
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Names of ISP subscribers
Key Insight: Where plaintiff abused discovery process by, among other things, failing to produce email attachments and belatedly advising defendant and court that certain emails were unrecoverable, court imposed monetary sanctions against plaintiff and granted request for limited inspection of computer hard drives used by certain of plaintiff’s employees to be conducted by independent forensic examiner
Nature of Case: Breach of contract, account stated, open account, and unjust enrichment
Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives of plaintiff’s employees
Key Insight: Court issued order relieving law firm of its duties as Co-Interim Class Counsel for plaintiffs, set scheduling conference and ordered parties’ attorneys to meet to discuss various issues in advance of conference, including joint proposed scheduling plan, preservation of evidence and any issues relating to disclosure or discovery of ESI
Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation
Electronic Data Involved: ESI generally
Key Insight: Where plaintiffs made prima facie showing of infringement, there was no other way to identify Doe defendant, and there was risk that ISP would destroy its logs prior to Rule 26(f) conference, court found that need for expedited discovery outweighed prejudice to defendant and granted plaintiffs? motion for leave to take immediate discovery
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement through use of peer-to-peer (“P2P”) networking
Electronic Data Involved: ISP logs; documents and ESI sufficient to identify defendant’s true name, current and permanent addresses and telephone numbers, email addresses, and Media Access Control addresses
Key Insight: Court denied defendants’ motion to stay all discovery pending resolution of not-yet-filed petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, set Rule 16(b) scheduling conference, directed parties to conduct Rule 26(f) planning conference, and instructed parties to familiarize themselves with 2006 e-discovery amendments to FRCP, review ESI guidelines posted on court’s Internet website, and become knowledgeable about their clients’ information management systems and their operation, including how information is stored and retrieved
Nature of Case: Coercion, failure to investigate, fabrication of evidence, and malicious prosecution
Electronic Data Involved: ESI generally
Key Insight: Good cause existed to grant plaintiffs’ application for expedited discovery prior to Rule 26(f) conference given possibility that ISP may destroy information that could identify Doe defendants, discovery request was narrowly tailored and would substantially contribute to moving case forward, and defendants could not be identified without requested information; to protect any privacy rights or first amendment protections of Doe defendants, court set out procedure for ISP to first contact subscribers prior to releasing their information and set deadlines for any motions to quash
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Names and contact information for ISP subscribers
Key Insight: Where defendants were able to produce responsive emails from plaintiff?s email account, but could produce no other emails from accounts of various defendants or from Department of State due to routine ?purging? procedures that included closing individuals’ email accounts, deletion of files from their office computers after they leave employment, and routine deletion of files from State’s email servers, court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions finding that defendants had acted in good faith and that plaintiff had not met threshold showing of relevancy of any specific evidence that was lost
Nature of Case: Discrimination based on race and national origin, wrongful termination
Electronic Data Involved: Email
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
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.