Tag:Motion for Protective Order

1
Leibholz v. Hariri, 2008 WL 2697336 (D.N.J. June 30, 2008)
2
Huthnance v. D.C., 255 F.R.D. 285 (D.D.C. 2008)
3
U.S. v. Two Bank Accounts, 2008 WL 2696927 (D.S.D. July 2, 2008)
4
Koch Foods of Ala., LLC v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 2008 WL 5264672 (11th Cir. Dec. 18, 2008)
5
RGIS, LLC v. A.S.T., Inc., 2008 WL 186349 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 22, 2008)
6
Viacom Intern. Inc. v. Youtube Inc., 2008 WL 2627388 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2008)
7
Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2009 WL 71678 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2009)
8
Simon Property Group, Inc. v. Taubman Centers, Inc., 2008 WL 205250 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 24, 2008)
9
Goshawk Dedicated Ltd. v. Am. Viatical Servs., LLC, 2008 WL 2901864 (N.D. Ga. July 23, 2008)
10
In re Rosenthal, 2008 WL 983702 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2008)

Leibholz v. Hariri, 2008 WL 2697336 (D.N.J. June 30, 2008)

Key Insight: Court denied third party?s motion to quash and ordered it to produce 30(b)(6) witness to testify regarding maintenance of electronic copies of files, including electronic copies of two contested letters, backup procedures utilized, and document and electronic record retention policies

Nature of Case: Securities fraud, common law fraud, promissory and equitable estoppel, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copies of two disputed letters

Huthnance v. D.C., 255 F.R.D. 285 (D.D.C. 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendants? radio log indicated a relevant communication occurred but where defendants were unable to produce the audio tape, court ordered defendant to produce its document retention policies to show ?whether the [communications] were maintained according to standard procedure?

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged illegal arrest and detention

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tapes of phonecalls, access to

U.S. v. Two Bank Accounts, 2008 WL 2696927 (D.S.D. July 2, 2008)

Key Insight: Where party initially told government he did not have certain computers used in various businesses discussed in complaint, then revealed that he possessed the computers but objected to providing them to government, and then admitted having removed hard drives and hiring third party to create a mirror images, court ruled that government was not bound to accept mirror image made by third party and ordered party to produce computers to government for inspection; court further ordered government to promptly create mirror image of hard drives and return computers promptly to party

Nature of Case: Forfeiture action

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives of certain computers used in the transactions alleged in the complaint

Koch Foods of Ala., LLC v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 2008 WL 5264672 (11th Cir. Dec. 18, 2008)

Key Insight: Court found no waiver of attorney-client privilege from inadvertent production where the privileged email was found tucked into a 37-page lease agreement contained in a 3,758 page production, where the email was included in the privilege log, and where plaintiff immediately asserted privilege upon learning of its disclosure; court acknowledged Alabama?s lack of controlling authority, but applied a totality-of-the-circumstances test reasoning that ?it would likely be adopted by the Alabama Supreme Court if confronted with the issue.?

Nature of Case: Conversion

Electronic Data Involved: Email

RGIS, LLC v. A.S.T., Inc., 2008 WL 186349 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 22, 2008)

Key Insight: Court granted defendants? request for appointment of Fed. R. Civ. P. 53 special master to analyze and compare source codes of subject software prior to any discovery of proprietary source codes

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code for software in hand-held computers used for inventory control

Viacom Intern. Inc. v. Youtube Inc., 2008 WL 2627388 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2008)

Key Insight: Ruling on parties? cross-motions regarding production of various types of ESI sought by plaintiffs, court denied motion to compel source code given its value and secrecy and plaintiff?s failure to make proper preliminary showing justifying production; court further denied motion to compel production of schema for Google?s advertising database, but granted motion to compel as to data from YouTube logging database and schema for Google Video Content database

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Databases, computer source code which controls both the YouTube.com search function and Google’s internet search tool ?Google.com? and source code for YouTube’s ?Video ID? program

Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2009 WL 71678 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced electronically stored information on an expedited basis pursuant to court order and did not perform a privilege review of the production, but where substantial steps were taken to protect privilege during the collection phase of discovery and where those efforts were thwarted by technical mistakes and human error, court granted plaintiff?s motion for a protective order finding the privilege was not waived by the expedited production and ordering defendants to return or destroy any privilege encountered ?in the ordinary course of trial preparation?; court acknowledged outstanding issue of fact that could affect waiver as to individual documents and indicated its willingness to resolve such questions in response to an appropriate motion to do so

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive, ESI

Simon Property Group, Inc. v. Taubman Centers, Inc., 2008 WL 205250 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 24, 2008)

Key Insight: Where nonparty demonstrated that a search for ESI using terms provided by party returned over 250,000 files and that it would take three employees working full time for four weeks to review files for responsiveness, and party offered to narrow scope by altering time periods, search terms, and servers, court ordered enforcement of subpoena with provision that both parties work in good faith to reduce its scope

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, RICO and other tort claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Rosenthal, 2008 WL 983702 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2008)

Key Insight: Finding that District Attorney?s admitted deletion of more than 2,500 emails sought by subpoena constituted ?unexcused, egregious conduct,? court found him in contempt of court and imposed $18,900 in sanctions (representing attorneys? fees); court further found that actions of attorney representing DA in the proceedings were ?unprincipled and dilatory, at best, constituting a deliberate indifference to the Court’s Orders and subpoena,? held him in contempt of court, and ordered that $5,000 of the $18,900 in sanctions awarded against DA was jointly and severally awarded against his attorney

Nature of Case: Civil rights suit against Harris County, Texas, the Harris County Sheriff and several Harris County deputies

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted emails of the District Attorney of Harris County, Texas

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.