Motion for Protective Order – Page 17 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re Direct Sw., Inc. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Litig., 2009 WL 2461716 (E.D. La. Aug. 7, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where parties disagreed about whether defendants were required to search for ESI using plaintiffs? search terms or using their own, court denied motion for reconsideration and upheld prior order requiring defendants to ?certify that they conducted a complete search using the terms found on plaintiff?s search term list? despite defendants? claims that using such terms would ?produce many false hits and require them to incur costs of $100,000 to produce the ESI?

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Infor Global Solutions (MI), Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 2009 WL 2390174 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where out of ?an apparent concern about the court imposed deadline,? plaintiff produced electronic documents without review because of technical difficulties opening certain files and emails and where plaintiff informed no one of the difficulties, sought no extension from the court for production, and did not qualify the production with any ?clawback? notice, court found that plaintiff had waived privilege and granted defendant?s motion to compel

Nature of Case: Insurance

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

Fuller v. Interview, Inc., 2009 WL 3241542 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found no waiver of privilege where production was inadvertent, where reasonable steps were taken to protect privileged materials, where the volume of inadvertently produced material was very small (portions of a few pages out of 34,000 pages produced), and where defendants acted quickly to assert the privilege after discovering the inadvertent production

Nature of Case: Termination in violation of Family Medical Leave Act

Electronic Data Involved: Portions of privileged emails

Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel, 2009 WL 3446761 (D.N.J. Oct. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted protective order precluding obligation to search archived emails or emails stored on backup tapes where such emails were ?not reasonably accessible? in light of the estimated $1.5 million retrieval costs and because backup tapes are generally considered inaccessible, and where plaintiffs failed to establish good cause for such production; where defendant offered a ?scaled back alternative,? court ordered parties to split the cost of retrieving emails from a particular subset of backup tapes and provided plaintiffs the opportunity to compel searches of an additional subset of tapes – at their expense – including the cost of review

Nature of Case: Allegations of discriminatory safety inspections of African American owned buses en route to Atlantic City

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes, email

Carolina Materials, LLC v. Continental Cas. Co., 2009 WL 4611519 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 1, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel third party examination of plaintiff?s relevant computers and servers but, where one such server contained data belonging to entities not party to the litigation, court granted plaintiff?s motion for a protective order and prohibited defendant from creating a forensic copy of all programs and data on that server and prohibited defendant from viewing the data belonging to the non-parties; court also ordered plaintiff to provide an explanation for the disappearance or destruction of materials that were no longer available for production

Nature of Case: Insurance contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on relevant computers and servers

Viacom Int?l, Inc. v. YouTube Inc., 2009 WL 102808 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted defendants? motion to compel production of third party?s materials related to plaintiffs despite objections where documents sought were relevant and where the alleged burden was insufficient in light of probable reimbursement to third party by plaintiffs, plaintiffs? performance of the necessary privilege review, and third party?s prior success in reducing the volume of responsive documents; where defendants sought third party material unrelated to plaintiffs, court ordered defendants and third party to meet and confer regarding scope of production and ordered defendants to bear the cost; court also ordered meet and confer regarding format of production, including specific consideration of granting defendants access to Kroll database where documents were stored

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Amobi v. D.C. Dep?t of Corrs., 262 F.R.D. 45 (D.D.C. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: In this opinion authored by Magistrate Judge Facciola, the court conducted an analysis of waiver pursuant to FRE 502 and found that the attorney work-product privilege was waived by the inadvertent production of an attorney-prepared memorandum where defendants claimed ?several reviews of the documents?were undertaken? but offered no indication of the methodology used to review documents for privilege ?let alone any explanation of why these efforts were?reasonable in the context of the demands made upon the defendants? and thus failed to meet their burden of proving that the privilege was not waived

Nature of Case: Claims arising from DOC officer’s removal from duty following an altercation with an inmate

Electronic Data Involved: Attorney-prepared memorandum

Union Ins. Co. v. Delta Casket Co. Inc., 06-2090, 2009 WL 10665127 (W.D. Tenn., Dec. 1, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted Plaintiff?s motion that Defendants bear the costs Plaintiff incurred in producing archived emails, implicated by Defendant?s 30(b)(6) notice. The notice came after a year and a half of discovery and one month before the discovery deadline. Plaintiff was required to use a third party to conduct the search, put the retrieved emails on discs, send them to a copy service to convert to TIFF files and print them so Plaintiff?s counsel could review for relevancy and privilege. Plaintiff spent approximately $35,000 on this process. The Court held that Plaintiff?s Motion was timely and Defendants had notice before the emails were produced that Plaintiff was seeking costs, Plaintiff met its burden of showing the cost and burden incurred were undue and conversion of the discs to TIFF format was necessary in order for Plaintiff?s counsel to review the emails prior to production.

Nature of Case: Insurance indemnification

Electronic Data Involved: Archived email

Kay Beer Distrib., Inc. v. Energy Brands, Inc., 2009 WL 425821 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of all electronically stored information containing plaintiff?s name where defendants had already produced all email containing plaintiff?s name in the body of the message, where defendants had already expended $40,000 to respond to plaintiff?s requests, and where the court determined the extensive discovery was not warranted in light of its finding that ?the facts needed to support Kay?s claims?are already part of the record or necessarily within Kay?s own knowledge? and the unlikelihood that plaintiff would prevail at summary judgment

Nature of Case: Claims under Wisconsin?s Fair Dealership Law, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, among others

Electronic Data Involved: ESI containing mention of plaintiff

Snoznik v. Jeld-Wen, 259 F.R.D. 217 (W.D.N.C. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where testifying expert created and utilized electronic templates which he considered proprietary to create his report, court granted expert?s motion for a protective order and declined to compel production of the templates upon finding that the templates were not relevant to the actual issues at trial, that the defendant failed to show a need for the templates in light of expert?s production of underlying data used to create his report, that the expert properly sought a protective order to address the issues of confidentiality, and that the potential harm to the expert outweighed the potential (non-existent) harm to defendant

Nature of Case: Negligence, breach of implied warranty and express warranty and loss of consortium

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic templates used to create expert report

Tag:Motion for Protective Order