Motion for Protective Order – Page 14 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re Sawstop Cases, 2010 WL 2483316 (D. Mass. June 14, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiffs? production of cartridges containing relevant data (?akin to a ?black box??) that were relied upon by their expert in forming his opinions but found both parties proposed protective measures insufficient and ordered defendants to designate an expert or experts to review the cartridges, restricted access to the cartridges to defendants? expert(s) and counsel and their employees ?whose functions required access to the cartridge or cartridge information?, and ordered that each expert sign an agreement that they would not seek to develop technology similar to that at issue

Electronic Data Involved: Cartridge data “akin to a black box”

Interserve, Inc. v. Fusion Garage, Ltd., 2010 WL 3931100 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where the court found that defendant?s source code?s metadata ?(i.e. programmer?s notes or comments and other annotations in the source code) ? may be relevant to [plaintiff?s] claims,? the court ordered defendant to produce the metadata but indicated that it could redact the actual source code from the production and produce the metadata subject to the parties? stipulated protective order

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of business ideas, false advertising, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata for source code ?(i.e. programmer?s notes or comments and other annotations in the source code)”

Jones v. Comsys IT Partners, Inc., 2010 WL 3002083 (W.D.N.C. July 27, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where in response to plaintiff?s motion for a protective order requiring the preservation of relevant emails defendants affirmed they had been preserving relevant evidence and would continue to do so, the court denied plaintiff?s motion as moot

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Fleming v. Escort, Inc., 2010 WL 3833995 (D. Idaho Sept. 24, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought the unredacted source code of defendant?s allegedly infringing products, the court credited plaintiff?s expert testimony that because source code ?generally contains notes by the writer of that code ?that explain to others who come later what the [writer] of the code was trying to accomplish at that portion of the code??, all of the source code was necessary to ensure his correct understanding of all portions and ordered plaintiff to produce the source code pursuant to the parties protective order; in so holding, court noted that ?the dilemma? of having to produce source court for unrelated products was of defendant?s ?own making? because of its business practice of bundling the source code for all of its products together

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Jeanes-Kemp, LLC v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 2010 WL 3522028 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 1, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion for protective order as to two inadvertently produced privileged documents where the production was inadvertent, where discovery was reviewed by three attorneys prior to production and thus efforts to prevent disclosure were reasonable, and where upon notice of disclosure, counsel took immediate steps to retrieve the documents; court declined to sanction defense counsel for threatening use of the inadvertently disclosed documents where plaintiff?s motion for protective order was granted and where defendants had not yet had the opportunity to use the documents as threatened

Electronic Data Involved: Inadvertently produced emails

BBVA Compass Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Olson, 2010 WL 4004516 (D. Colo. Oct. 12, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff presented evidence that searching for the information requested by defendants could exceed 400 hours and where the request was duplicative and other sources of information existed, the court found that ?the burden on plaintiff ? is heavier than Defendants? alleged need for the files warrants? and granted plaintiff?s request for a Protective Order

Nature of Case: Claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of loyalty and breach of contract, among others

Electronic Data Involved: ESI/customer files

Camesi v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 2010 WL 3718867 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 20, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Stating that ?it is defendant?s responsibility to demonstrate objectively reasonable compliance? with the rules regarding ESI, the court found that defendants had failed to do so and denied their motion for a protective order; granting plaintiff?s motion to compel, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer to identify custodians for the purpose of limited discovery/sampling and to identify search terms to be utilized; court ordered defendants to identify potentially responsive ESI sources and to provide a reasonable description of the information stored therein in compliance with Local Rule 26.2

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, 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

Olem Shoe Corp. v. Wash. Shoe Co., 2010 WL 3981694 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court found no waiver of privilege resulting from commercial copy service?s inadvertent disclosure of privileged materials to plaintiff?s counsel where the disclosure was clearly inadvertent, where reasonable steps were taken to protect the privilege including clear instructions to the copy service and clearly marking the documents as privileged, and where defense counsel acted promptly to rectify the error after learning of the disclosure; court rejected arguments that defense counsel waived privilege by a delay in seeking the documents? return where such delay was directly related to plaintiff?s decision to notify only defense counsel?s paralegal of the disclosure, who inexcusably failed to pass that information on to counsel, and where defense counsel requested the documents? return on the same day he actually learned of the disclosure

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

Kmart Corp. v. Footstar, Inc., 2010 WL 4512337 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court found the producing party did not take reasonable steps to prevent disclosure and that privilege was therefore waived as to inadvertently produced privileged documents where the number of documents requiring review prior to production was low in light of the public nature of most documents produced at the same time as the inadvertently produced documents, where the alleged time constraints for the relevant review were ?self-imposed? by the producing party, and where despite representations that the materials were reviewed by an attorney who was looking for privileged materials, insufficient facts were offered in support of that contention

Nature of Case: Plaintiff sought indemnification for underlying personal injury suit

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Motion for Protective Order