Tag:Keyword Search

1
Discover Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 2006 WL 3230157 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2006)
2
Wells v. Orange County Sch. Bd., 2006 WL 4824479 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2006)
3
Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. v. DiMartinis, 2006 WL 3240116 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2006) (Unpublished)
4
TIG Ins. Co. v. Premier Parks, Inc., 2005 WL 468300 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 1, 2005) (Unpublished)
5
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 179 F.R.D. 622 (D. Utah 1998)
6
Rowe Entm?t, Inc. v. William Morris Agency, Inc., 2002 WL 975713 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2002)
7
In re Search of 3817 W. West End, 321 F. Supp. 2d 953 (N.D. Ill. 2004)
8
In re Verisign, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2004 WL 2445243 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2004)
9
Wiginton v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 229 F.R.D. 568 (N.D. Ill. 2004)
10
In the Matter of Certain Network Interface Cards, 2001 WL 1217233 (U.S.I.T.C. Oct. 12, 2001)

Discover Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 2006 WL 3230157 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2006)

Key Insight: Court ruled that American Express would be allowed to conduct a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition to address the topics of Wells Fargo’s document retention, collection and production efforts in the litigation, but that such deposition would be limited to three hours; court further noted: “American Express and Wells Fargo have each declined to produce certain information, for example, the content of their ‘litigation hold’ notices. In such situations, it is unlikely that I would compel one party to produce such information, unless American Express and all of the Bank Defendants stipulate to simultaneous exchange of all their information concerning a given topic.”

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Legal hold notices

Wells v. Orange County Sch. Bd., 2006 WL 4824479 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2006)

Key Insight: Where defendant’s initial email search was not appropriate and incomplete and court observed that ?better communications and diligence ? e.g., through personal interaction rather than email between general counsel and the IT director ? would have avoided one year?s delay in producing relevant documents,? court denied motion to compel since record indicated that further searches would be futile, but awarded plaintiff costs of motion

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. v. DiMartinis, 2006 WL 3240116 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2006) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel production of an exact image of the hard drive of defendant’s personal computer and instead ordered that the examination of and production from defendant’s personal computer proceed on the terms spelled out in defendant’s responses to the motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: PC hard drive

TIG Ins. Co. v. Premier Parks, Inc., 2005 WL 468300 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 1, 2005) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Where insurer, in course of attempting to comply with discovery order, realized it had no electronic mechanism to retrieve case files based on whether a class was certified, but it could sort files by amount expended, court modified discovery order because it would have inflicted a substantial burden upon the insurer and the information produced would almost certainly be irrelevant

Nature of Case: Park operator alleged insurer failed to provide adequate counsel to defend a class action discrimination suit

Electronic Data Involved: Case file data

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 179 F.R.D. 622 (D. Utah 1998)

Key Insight: Plaintiff sanctioned $10,000 for failing to preserve or search email of certain persons; key word search to be narrowed

Nature of Case: Business sued competitors for defamation and unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Email, databases (scope of key word search)

Rowe Entm?t, Inc. v. William Morris Agency, Inc., 2002 WL 975713 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2002)

Key Insight: District judge upheld magistrate’s decision

Nature of Case: Concert promoters sued booking agencies and other promoters for discriminatory and anti-competitive practices

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on backup tapes and hard drives

Wiginton v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 229 F.R.D. 568 (N.D. Ill. 2004)

Key Insight: Court created its own eight-factor test by adding one more factor to the Zubulake seven-factor test, and determined that cost-shifting was appropriate (responding party 25% and requesting party 75%)

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on backup tapes

In the Matter of Certain Network Interface Cards, 2001 WL 1217233 (U.S.I.T.C. Oct. 12, 2001)

Key Insight: Where there were gaps in plaintiff’s production of email, administrative law judge granted motion to compel production of email from plaintiff’s backup tapes but ordered parties to share the costs of such production

Nature of Case: Case before the U.S. International Trade Commission

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.