Motion for Protective Order – Page 13 – Electronic Discovery Law

Schulte v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 2011 WL 256542 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court rejected defendant?s assertion that relevant video surveillance footage was protected as work product as a result of its preservation in anticipation of litigation and pursuant to the direction of counsel where the video was ?made as part of the normal course of surveillance videos made by NCL? and ?was not created in the work product context?

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

Nissan N. Am., Inc. v. Johnson Electric N. Am., Inc., No. 09-CV-11783, 2011 WL 1002835 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 17, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for a protective order and ordered production of confirmation the locations searched for responsive ESI; production of plaintiff?s backup policies and tracking records; production of plaintiff?s document retention policy; and production of a data map to show the age and location of data on plaintiff?s systems

Electronic Data Involved: Information related to plaintiff’s computer systems

Lowy v. Peacehealth, 247 P.3d 7 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Appellate court reinstated original order compelling defendants? to search its quality assurance database for records pertaining to incidents similar to plaintiff?s and denied defendants? motion for a protective order where RCW 70.41.2003 prevents defendants? from allowing a review of such records by ?outside persons? but where an internal review for the purpose of identifying responsive records would not be in violation of the statute

Nature of Case: Medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Information related to claims similar to plaintiff’s

Pensacola Firefighters? Relief Pension Fund Board of Trustees v. Merril Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., No. 3:09cv53/MCR/MD, 2011 WL 3512180 (N.D. Fla. July 7, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Finding good cause, the court granted intervenors? motion for a protective order prohibiting plaintiff?s discovery of intervenors? privileged emails sent over defendant?s email servers (defendant was found to have waived its privilege as to such communications) where the intervenors were employees of defendant during the pendency of government investigations; had a joint defense agreement with defendant allowing communication for purposes of furthering their defense against the investigations; and held an objectively reasonable belief that their emails would remain confidential, in spite of defendant?s internal email policies warning that they were not, in light of defendant?s general counsel?s endorsement of and participation in such joint defense discussions

Electronic Data Involved: Intervenors’ privileged emails sent over defendant’s servers

Cannata v. Wyndham Wordwide Corp., No. 2:10-cv-00068-PMP-LRL, 2011 WL 3495987 (D. Nev. Aug. 10, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied defendants? motion for a protective order precluding plaintiffs? inquiry (in deposition) into defendants? preservation efforts where, although a litigation hold letter is generally privileged, ?the basic details surrounding the litigation hold are not? and where the court found that the answers to certain of plaintiffs? questions, including inquiries into the ?overwrite function issue? (apparently related to a failure to stop automatic deletion), would ?allow the parties to craft a narrow, manageable ESI plan?

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Information related to legal hold efforts

Orillaneda v. French Culinary Inst., No. 07 Civ. 3206(RJH)(HBP), 2011 WL 4375365 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court found plaintiff?s request for information related to defendant?s internal search procedures and information systems did not seek relevant information and that plaintiff had not indentified facts that suggested defendant?s document production was deficient and granted defendant?s motion for a protective order stating, ?Discovery concerning these areas may be appropriate in certain circumstances, but it is not appropriate in this case unless and until plaintiff makes a specific showing that defendant?s production is deficient.?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Information related to defendant?s internal search procedures and information systems

Millsaps v. Aluminum Co. of Amer., No. 10-84924, 2011 WL 6019220 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where, in a separate but similar case involving the same plaintiffs? counsel and defendant, defendant was previously prepared to produce the scanned contents of approximately 1300 boxes when the case settled, and where plaintiff in the present case (with the same plaintiffs? counsel) sought production of those documents in his case, and where the disagreement focused on which party should be allowed to search the documents for relevant information (because defendant felt that plaintiff?s search would identify all documents as relevant and plaintiff felt that defendant would not identify relevant documents that were not obviously relevant but nonetheless important), the court ordered the parties to confer to develop search terms and agreed, if necessary, to consider up to 100 disputed terms submitted by the parties

Nature of Case: Wrongful death, asbestos

Electronic Data Involved: Scanned hard copy

Stambler v. Amazon.com, No. 2:09-CV-310 (DF), 2011 WL 10538668 (E.D. Tex. May 23, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where parties agreed on search terms to identify responsive materials and defendants (the producing parties) later argued that the terms had produced overly-burdensome results, court held that defendants had the burden of ?justifying non-production or reduced production? because they had agreed to the terms and that they had failed to ?justify protection under Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii)? but, acknowledging the expected costs of review and production, indicated that defendants could choose to produce documents without reviewing the results in light of the ability to identify privilege using key words and the parties? claw back agreement in their protective order; recognizing the potential burden to plaintiffs if defendants chose to produce documents without review, the court indicated the parties could confer to revise search terms if they so chose

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Aventa Learning, Inc. v. K12, Inc., —F. Supp. 2d—, 2011 WL 5438690 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 8, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Applying Washington State law, court held that return of employer-issued laptop containing attorney-client privileged information without asserting a claim of privilege as to those contents resulted in waiver of privilege; even where privilege was asserted as to certain contents prior to return of employer-issued laptop, privilege was waived where employer?s policies negated expectation of privacy, including as to web based email accessed on the laptop; court?s analysis applied four part test from In re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd., 322 B.R. 247 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005)

Nature of Case: Breach of separation agreement, conversion

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

In re Urethane Antitrust Litig., 2010 WL 4226214 (D. Kan. Oct. 21, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs sought a protective order to preclude discovery of a certain category of information, court denied their motion for a myriad of reasons, including rejecting arguments of undue burden and expense where the arguments were ?largely conclusory and unsupported? and where plaintiffs evidence actually established that the discovery could be reasonably undertaken as the result of work done while responding to other requests and reasoned that while responding would ?take time?, it would not be an ?inordinate? amount

Nature of Case: Price fixing, market-allocation conspiracies

Electronic Data Involved: ESI related to criminal investigation of some plaintiffs

Tag:Motion for Protective Order