Motion for Protective Order – Page 10 – Electronic Discovery Law

FDIC v. Bowden, No. CV413-245, 2014 WL 2548137 (S.D. Ga. June 6, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where FDIC spent $614,000 to digitally scan about 2.01 terabytes of data or 153.6 million pages of documents after taking over failing bank, and before any written document requests were served, court evaluated parties? competing proposals for conducting e-discovery, discussed the governing standards for manner of document production, formatting issues, and cost-shifting for digital format conversion expenses, and ultimately approved protocol offered by FDIC; court further instructed that, in the event of any further ESI-protocol disagreement or objection to the court?s decision, the parties must first confer and attempt to craft a joint ESI protocol or consent order in light of the principles highlighted in the court?s ruling

Nature of Case: Bank receiver brought bank mismanagement case against 16 of bank’s former directors and officers

Electronic Data Involved: Records of failed bank

Design Basics, LLC v. Carhart Lumber Co., No. 8:13CV125, 2014 WL 6669844 (D. Neb. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where court had previously ruled that, absent an order of the court upon a showing of good cause or stipulation by the parties, a party from whom ESI has been requested shall not be required to search for responsive ESI: (a) from more than 10 key custodians, (b) that was created more than five years before the filing of the lawsuit, (c) from sources that are not reasonably accessible without undue burden or cost, or (d) for more than 160 hours, inclusive of time spent identifying potentially responsive ESI, collecting that ESI, searching that ESI and reviewing that ESI for responsiveness, confidentiality and privilege or work product, and plaintiff subsequently moved to compel additional computer imaging, court balanced Rule 26(b)(2)(B) considerations and, acknowledging that defendant had provided both electronic and paper copies of all blueprints, performed plaintiff?s requested search on the email copied from 11 computers, had invested many hours reviewing thousands of documents for privilege and had offered to produce the non-privileged emails to plaintiff?s counsel for his review and had provided suggested deposition dates for defendant?s president, and noting that plaintiff neither reviewed the email nor deposed anyone notwithstanding that case was more then 18 months old, concluded that requested discovery was not reasonable and proportional to the issues raised in the litigation, denied plaintiff?s motion to compel, granted defendant?s motion for protective order, and ordered parties to complete and file an appended Rule 26(f) Report

Nature of Case: Design misappropriation

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic images of every computer or data storage location used by defendant

Farstone Tech., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 8-13-cv-01537-ODW(JEMx), 2014 WL 2865786 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court adopted plaintiff’s source-code printing provision in its entirety, rejecting as too restrictive defendant’s proposed limitations that parties may print only that source code ?necessary? to prepare court filings and pleadings, noting that the “reasonably necessary” standard had solid foundation in district?s model protective order, and rejecting as arbitrary defendant?s proposed numerical restrictions: 30-page threshold beyond which the source code printing would be presumed to be excessive, and a total cap on source code printing at the greater of 250 pages or 10 percent of the source code; court also adopted in full plaintiff?s proposed language regarding the use of source code for depositions

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Finkle v. Howard Cnty., Md., No. SAG?13?3236, 2014 WL 6835628, (D. Md. Dec. 2, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District Court granted Defendant?s Motion for Protective Order and denied Plaintiff?s Motion to Compel, finding that Plaintiff?s Interrogatory seeking the identification of all email accounts, social media services, internet discussion groups, cellular telephone or text messaging services used by certain County employees from January 2010 through the present, for the purpose of issuing a subpoena to the appropriate service providers, would impose an undue burden on Defendant and that Plaintiff was not lawfully entitled to the content of those accounts under the Stored Communications Act (?SCA?); regarding its reliance on the SCA, the court specifically reasoned that ?there is no reason to invite an unfettered ?fishing expedition? into the personal communications of non-party employees without a viable reason to believe that relevant information would be accessible to Plaintiff or would be contained therein.?

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination (Title VII)

Electronic Data Involved: Account information for all email, social media (e.g., Facebook, MySpace), discussion groups, text messaging services, etc.

Crissen v. Gupta, No. 2:12-cv-00355-JMS-WGH, 2014 WL 1431653 (S.D. Ind. Apr. 14, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court criticized plaintiff for not complying with inadvertent production provision of protective order and ordered plaintiff to delete all copies of the recalled documents and any information gleaned therefrom from its network drive, and further ruled that plaintiff may not use the documents or any work product derived therefrom unless and until it is determined that those documents should have been produced; court further awarded bank its fees and costs in connection with the motion, to be paid by plaintiff’s counsel, because the language of the claw back provision was clear and plaintiff’s counsel not only ignored that language but then took the extra step of reviewing the very documents the bank sought to recall

Nature of Case: Racketeering, fraud, unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: Tax returns, bank documents containing defendants’ personal financial information, and internal bank documents

Black & Veatch Corp. v. Aspen Ins. (UK) Ltd., No. 12-2350-SAC, 2014 WL 806122 (D. Kan. Feb. 28, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied in most respects plaintiff’s motion for protective order, finding that plaintiff’s undue burden and expense arguments were unsupported and conclusory; court further denied plaintiff’s alternative proposal to shift some of the uncalculated ESI costs onto defendants as plaintiff failed to show that the disputed ESI production was inaccessible because of undue burden or cost, and because other relevant factors did not weigh in plaintiff’s favor; court further denied plaintiff?s request for a discovery conference or appointment of an ESI master, and ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding the proper method to search custodian hard drives, and suggested the parties consider a clawback provision specifically for ESI harvested after running the parties? respective search terms

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage dispute

Electronic Data Involved: ESI in databases and stored on custodian hard drives

Ameritox, Ltd. v. Millennium Labs., Inc., No. 8:11-cv-00775-T-24 TBM, 2013 WL 5656064 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 17, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion to quash subpoena that sought documents, deposition transcripts and exhibits from third-party that related to defendant and that were produced by defendant in third-party’s now-settled litigation with defendant because defendant failed to comply with local rule requiring submission of a joint written statement of the matters at issue in the discovery dispute; court further noted there was nothing in the record that the target of the subpoena objected to producing the requested documents, and defendant cited no local or procedural rule which prohibited the plaintiff from subpoenaing the information from the third-party before or after plaintiff requested it from defendant

Nature of Case: Motion to quash subpoena issued by plaintiff in case pending in the Middle District of Florida, listing Nashville, Tenn. as the place of production

Electronic Data Involved: Documents, deposition transcripts and exhibits produced by defendant in other, now-settled litigation

FDIC v. Giannoulias, No. 12 C 1665, 2013 WL 5762397 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendants propounded 242 requests for documents, trial court declined to require FDIC to review thousands of documents ?to weed out a presumably small subset of irrelevant materials,? or to organize its Phase II production according to defendants? numerous discovery requests; court granted in part and denied in part the parties? respective motions concerning search terms to be used to identify responsive material, and ruled that FDIC would bear the costs of production as they arose subject to the possibility that the court may later require contribution from the defendants; court further directed FDIC to submit to the court a revised proposed ESI protocol

Nature of Case: Receiver sued former directors and officers of bank to recover approximately $114 million in losses bank suffered on 20 commercial real estate loans

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, including email

Skepnek v. Roper & Twardowsky, No. 11-41-2-KHV, 2013 WL 5499801 (D. Kan. Oct. 3, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendant sought to avoid running the searches proposed by plaintiff based on irrelevance, overbreadth and undue burden, the court found that defendant had failed to meet the burden to show cause for entry of a protective order and granted plaintiffs? motion to compel

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Drummond Co., Inc. v. Collingsworth, No. 13-mc-81069-JST (JCS), 2013 WL 6074157 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court evaluated various arguments offered by defendants and email account holders resisting production of requested information and found that defendants did not have standing to move to quash the subpoenas, account holder who was human rights lawyer and US citizen established prima facie case of infringement of her right to freely associate, and other account holders who were non-US citizens did not have First Amendment rights; court limited time frame of certain requests and also determined that, because disclosure of identifying and usage information for the accounts beyond counsel may pose a safety risk to the email account holders and/or their families, defendants were entitled to a protective order prohibiting plaintiff?s counsel from sharing such information beyond counsel of record and their employees

Nature of Case: Motion to quash subpoenas to Google and Yahoo! issued in libel action pending in N.D. Ala.

Electronic Data Involved: Subscriber and usage information associated with four email addresses

Tag:Motion for Protective Order