Motion for Protective Order – Page 11 – Electronic Discovery Law

United States ex rel King v. Solvay S.A., No. H-06-2662, 2013 WL 820498 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court granted motion for protective order to limit unduly burdensome discovery and preservation demands where Defendant established the significant burden associated with preserving the multiple repositories of potentially relevant information covering 89 potential custodians, including thousands of back-up tapes, and where the court found that the allegations of the complaint did not justify the broad timeframe for discovery sought

Nature of Case: Qui Tam action alleging violations of anti-kickback statute and retaliation against Relators

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Novick v. AXA Network LLC, No. 07 Civ. 7767(AKH)(KNF), 2013 WL 5338427 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Conducting its cost-shifting analysis ?under the Zubulake standard,? court reasoned that defendants ?failed to show that cost-shifting is appropriate because they did not establish that the production at issue was unduly burdensome or expensive, that is, that the data were kept in an inaccessible format.?

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Safety Today, Inc. v. Roy, Nos. 2:12-cv-510, 2:12-cv-929, 2013 WL 1282384 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 27, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel inspection and imaging of certain of defendant?s computers/servers/devices in case involving accusations of misappropriation of confidential information by plaintiff?s former employees for the benefit of defendant but also granted defendant a protective order limiting disclosure for ?attorneys? eyes only?

Nature of Case: Missapropriation of confidential information

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Samaritan Alliance LLC v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health & Family Servs., (In re Samaritan Alliance LLC), No. 12-5009, 2013 WL 653624 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. Feb. 20, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where ?the Cabinet? inadvertently produced privileged emails and later sought a protective order to preclude a finding of waiver, the court held that privilege had been waived citing the delay in requesting the emails? return, the failure to object to use of the emails as a deposition exhibit, the relatively small volume of information within which the emails had been disclosed and the highly relevant content of the emails at issue

Nature of Case: Medicaid reimbursement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

EPL Holdings, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. C-12-04306 JST (JSC), 2013 WL 2181584 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Addressing parties? proposed departures from the court?s Model Protective Order, court approved protocol requiring Plaintiff?s reviewers to utilize an encrypted computer provided by Apple to conduct review of source code, including taking notes, and a ban on cell phones and other recording devices while reviewing source code (Apple promised to provide a land line); court declined to modify the Model Order?s provisions regarding printing source code, which place the burden of persuasion on the requesting party when a request for paper copies is challenged; court declined to include provision allowing Plaintiff to make electronic copies of source code and approved Defendant?s proposal requiring the parties to meet and confer regarding any electronic submission of source code; court approved provision requiring Plaintiff to return or destroy any documents containing source code at end of litigation

Nature of Case: patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: source code

Goldstein v. Colborne Acquisition Co., No. 10 C 6861, 2012 WL 1969369 (N.D. Ill. June 1, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: President and owner of corporation waived privileged as to emails on company servers by consenting to the sale of all company assets, including the company?s servers and emails, without asserting his privilege; shareholders/officers of corporation waived privilege as to messages sent from company email where subjective belief that their communications were confidential was not reasonable in light of company?s email policy which claimed ownership of emails on company systems and reserved the right to access them; court?s analysis applied Asia Global Crossing factors, but acknowledged that privilege waiver inquiries require case-by-case analysis

Nature of Case: Claim of fraudulent sale of business to avoid judgment

Electronic Data Involved: Allegedly privileged emails

Tadayon v. Greyhound Lines, Inc, No. 10-1326, 2012 WL 2048257 (D.D.C. June 6, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: In this case, following analysis of several discovery motions, Magistrate Judge Facciola wrote of the need for cooperation: “III. High Noon. As explained at the discovery status hearing held on April 30, 2012, there is a new sheriff in town-not Gary Cooper, but me. The filing of forty-page discovery motions accompanied by thousands of pages of exhibits will cease and will now be replaced by a new regimen in which the parties, without surrendering any of their rights, must make genuine efforts to engage in the cooperative discovery regimen contemplated by the Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation.FN3 First, the parties will meet and confer in person in a genuine, good faith effort. . . .”; also, court ruled that where Clawback agreement imposed no conditions on right to recall privileged documents, defendant could do so irrespective of alleged negligence

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: All discovery

Richards v. Hertz Corp., —N.Y.S.2d—, 2012 WL 5503841 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 14, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where the public contents of one plaintiff?s Facebook account established that it was ?reasonable to believe? that other relevant information may also be present but where lower court only directed plaintiff to produce certain relevant photographs, appellate court remanded with instruction that the court conduct in camera review of ?all status reports, emails, photographs, and videos? to determine which of those materials, if any, were relevant; as to a separate plaintiff where no showing of potential relevance was made, appellate court found lower court properly granted her motion for a protective order

Nature of Case: Personal injury arising from auto accident

Electronic Data Involved: Social Network contents

Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. Microstrategy, Inc., No. 11-cv-06637-RS-PSG, 2012 WL 5637611 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Concluding that without more information it could not determine the reasonableness of Plaintiff?s request that Defendant use specific search terms for specified custodians, court ordered Defendant to run a searching using each of Plaintiff?s search terms against five custodians and for the parties to then meet and confer to attempt to reach resolution of their dispute and to return to the court if such resolution could not be reached; parties utilized modified version of Federal Circuit?s Model Order on E-Discovery in Patent Cases

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Adkins v. EQT Prod. Co., No. 1:10cv00041, 2012 WL 5465491 (W.D. Va. May 31, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing Defendant?s Motion for a Protective Order based on undue burden, court was ?persuaded? that no review was necessary to protect privilege because of the parties? Clawback Order and further found that a reasonable approach in light of Defendant?s assertions of burden (including that processing and review costs could exceed 4 million dollars, as represented by Defendant?s litigation support vendor) was to require Defendant to search and filter its ESI itself (rather than relying on the vendor), with all emails to be designated ?confidential? which would then shift the burden to Plaintiff?s counsel to determine if the ESI produced was over or under inclusive; Court specifically held that ?the court may consider the cost of review of ESI for privileged or responsive information in deciding whether discovery imposes an undue burden or cost on a responding party. Furthermore if the court were inclined to limit discovery based on the burden or cost of the review, I hold that the court could shift the costs of that review, either in whole or in part, to the requesting party.?

Nature of Case: Class action based on alleged entitlement to royalty payments

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Tag:Motion for Protective Order