Motion for Protective Order – Page 11 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

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

Norfolk S. Railway Co. v. Hartry, 316 Ga. App. 532 (Ga. Ct. App. June 29, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where relevant data could only be viewed using particular software, a license for which would cost $500, the trial court ordered Norfolk Southern to provide the data to Plaintiff ?in some useable form ? either by obtaining permission from [the owner of the software] to produce the data ?, by providing [Plaintiffs] with a computer with the necessary software? or by any other method the parties agreed to. On appeal, the court found no abuse of discretion, ?especially given the crucial nature of the evidence, the relatively minor cost of the license when compared to the amount at stake in the lawsuit, and the fact that it was Norfolk Sothern?s decision to equip its locomotives? with a recording device from which it could provide data to a third party only upon payment of a licensing fee.

Nature of Case: Personal injury arising from collision between train and tractor trailer

Electronic Data Involved: Event data recorder

King v. Rozek Co., No. 11-cv-01685-CMA-MJW, 2012 WL 2884788 (D. Colo. July 13, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where, based on discrepancies in certain witnesses? testimony, Plaintiff believed that relevant investigation notes/computer journal entries were created on a date later than the date alleged by the defendant, and where the creation date was relevant to the issues in the case, the court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel a forensic investigation of the computer on which the evidence was created, but sua sponte issued a protective order that would allow Plaintiff?s forensic investigator to make a mirror image of the at-issue computer but would limit his investigation to the question of when the notes were made or modified and which prohibited the investigator from accessing or viewing information not relevant to that discreet issue

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive

Kolon Indus. v. E.I. Du Pon De Nemours & Co., No. 3:11cv622, 2012 WL 614137 (E.D. Va. Feb. 23, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court granted defendant?s motion to compel production of ?computer images and dumpster files? for 29 custodians upon finding that the information sought was relevant and that production would not be unduly burdensome

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Computer images and “dumpster files”

Scott Process Sys., Inc. v. Mitchell, No. 2012CV00021, 2012 WL 6617363 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Trial court abused discretion in granting motion to compel forensic imaging of third party?s devices where the record did not present a history of discovery violations or non-compliance sufficient to justify such intrusion and where the court?s order permitted ?unfettered forensic imaging? and contained none of the protections required to conduct forensic analysis (e.g., a neutral third-party examiner, production to counsel for privilege review prior to production to opposing counsel, etc.)

Nature of Case: Violation of non-compete

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic imaging

Robinson v. City of Arkansas, Kansas, No. 10-1431-JAR-GLR, 2012 WL 603576 (D. Kan. Feb. 24, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing the sufficiency of defendant?s search for responsive ESI, among other discovery disputes, court found that defendant failed to conduct a reasonable search and ordered additional searching as specified by the court and that defendant produce mirror images of the computers and external drives of a former supervisor for defendant that was particularly relevant to the litigation (the court called the failure to search his computers ?inexcusable and inexplicable?); court granted protective order precluding defendant?s expert from requirement to produce hardware (computers, etc.) already subject to production by defendant pursuant to court?s order where such duplication was unnecessary and would unnecessarily increase costs

Nature of Case: civil rights and employment law

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Motion for Protective Order