Inspection – Page 5 – Electronic Discovery Law

Lorentz v. Sunshine Health Prods., Inc., 2010 WL 1856265 (S.D. Fla. May 10, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted motion for protective order where plaintiff?s request for inspection of defendants? hard drives was found ?per se overbroad and unduly burdensome when balanced against the need cited? and where plaintiff failed to explain whether a less intrusive option had been attempted, ?as per Rule 34?; despite granting the motion, court noted willingness to entertain a motion to inspect a particular hard drive if provided with a protocol for such inspection indicating a method to protect the non-responsive data

Robotic Parking Sys., Inc. v. City of Hoboken, 2010 WL 324524 (D.N.J. Jan. 19, 2010) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted intervenor?s motion for a protective order where plaintiff (intervenor?s direct competitor) sought access to defendant?s garage operating computers possibly containing intervenor?s trade secrets but denied request to prevent access entirely where such access was necessary for plaintiff?s case, where there was no showing of irrelevance or burden, and where intervenor?s concerns were ?too speculative to warrant non-disclosure?; court ordered parties to split cost of software necessary for defendant to view forensic images produced by plaintiff where plaintiff sought to use the images at trial, where defendant had no way to view the court ordered production otherwise, and where the parties failed to properly discuss and agree upon discovery issues, including the cost of production, pursuant to local rule

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, source code

Grasso v. Bakko, 2009 WL 224022 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 29, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel inspection of plaintiff?s computer, despite plaintiff?s conflicting statements regarding the existence of a contract in 2005 and defendant?s resulting belief that plaintiff created the contract on her computer years later, where court determined the inspection would be unduly burdensome and where plaintiff carried the burden to prove the contract existed in 2005, not defendant

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Robert v. Bd. of County Comm?rs of Brown Count, Kan., 2009 WL 1362530 (D. Kan. May 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants could not produce a requested email because of damage to author?s and recipient?s computers but where defendants undertook significant effort to search for the email, including a search by the county?s Information Technology Director and inquiry to the County?s email provider about the email?s availability, and where defendant offered to make the author?s computer available for inspection at plaintiff?s expense, court declined plaintiff?s request to ?shift the cost of an independent computer expert? to defendants and denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of the email

Electronic Data Involved: Email

High Voltage Beverages, LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. 2009 WL 2915026 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant represented that any additional searching would only result in the discovery and production of duplicative documents, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel defendant to search an identified alternative source upon finding ?that requiring defendant to sift sand for documents it has already produced would be unreasonably duplicative of earlier efforts and that the material contained therein is likely available from other sources, to wit, an earlier production of documents?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Viacom Int?l, Inc. v. YouTube Inc., 2009 WL 102808 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted defendants? motion to compel production of third party?s materials related to plaintiffs despite objections where documents sought were relevant and where the alleged burden was insufficient in light of probable reimbursement to third party by plaintiffs, plaintiffs? performance of the necessary privilege review, and third party?s prior success in reducing the volume of responsive documents; where defendants sought third party material unrelated to plaintiffs, court ordered defendants and third party to meet and confer regarding scope of production and ordered defendants to bear the cost; court also ordered meet and confer regarding format of production, including specific consideration of granting defendants access to Kroll database where documents were stored

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Dawe v. Corrections, USA, 2009 WL 3233883 (E.D. Colo. Oct. 1, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Citing a ?pervasive? level of ?distrust that permeates this litigation? and plaintiff?s ?adamant refusal to permit even a limited inspection? and citing defendants? representations that additional, relevant information remained on the laptop and that the laptop had been ?forensically cleaned,? court granted defendants? motion to compel inspection of plaintiff?s laptop but ordered defendants to bear the cost – if inspection revealed relevant information was withheld, court invited a motion to shift some or all of the costs to plaintiff(s)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, laptop

Loius Vuitton Malletier, S.A., v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc., 2009 WL 1312898 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s initial investigation into publicly posted Internet content evidencing offers for counterfeit products revealed that several previously identified addresses belonged to the same individual and where plaintiff identified additional potentially infringing sites, court granted plaintiff?s motion to modify the court ordered inspection protocol to allow investigation beyond the 67 websites previously identified; court rejected defendants? argument that modification should be denied as burdensome where plaintiff was to bear the cost of the searching and rejected defendants privacy concerns in light of expert?s articulated methodology for pinpointing only potentially relevant material

Nature of Case: Trademark and copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Website Content

Covad Commc?ns Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 258 F.R.D. 5 (D.D.C. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where parties failed to reach agreement regarding inspection protocol for defendant?s relevant database, court stepped in and ordered plaintiff?s expert to image relevant servers and PCs and to search those systems for relevant documents; having generally declined to order searching of defendant?s exchange servers absent more than conclusory assertions of a deficient production, court found compelling justification for a comparative search of certain exchange servers where, in light of a previous server crash and subsequent restoration of the content, questions arose regarding the identification of all responsive emails

Nature of Case: Misappropriation and conversion of trade secret information

Electronic Data Involved: Database, emails, ESI

Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenebaum, , 2009 WL 1651338 (D.R.I. June 10, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motion to compel compliance with third party subpoena to allow access to the hard drive of the parents of defendant accused of copyright infringement in a music downloading case where parents were not parties to the action and where the computer was purchased after defendant moved out and thus plaintiffs failed to establish likelihood of the discovery of relevant information sufficient to warrant intrusion into parents? privacy

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive belonging to third party

Tag:Inspection