Tag:Motion for Protective Order

1
ACS Consultant Co., Inc. v. Williams, 2007 WL 674608 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 5, 2007)
2
J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc. v. Adams, 2007 WL 789042 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 14, 2007)
3
Haka v. Lincoln County, 246 F.R.D. 577 (W.D. Wis. 2007)
4
Amersham Biosciences Corp. v. PerkinElmer, Inc, 2007 WL 842038 (D.N.J. Mar. 15, 2007) (Unpublished)
5
Palgut v. City Of Colo. Springs, 2007 WL 1238730 (D. Colo. Apr. 27, 2007)
6
Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2007 WL 1308388 (W.D. La. May 1, 2007)
7
Corvello v. New England Gas Co., Inc., 243 F.R.D. 28 (D.R.I. 2007)
8
In re Subpoena to Chronotek Sys., Inc., 2007 WL 2177013 (S.D. Tex. July 27, 2007)
9
Square D Co. v. Scott Elec. Co., 2007 WL 3488809 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 14, 2007)
10
John B. v. Goetz, 2007 WL 4198266 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 26, 2007)

ACS Consultant Co., Inc. v. Williams, 2007 WL 674608 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 5, 2007)

Key Insight: Court quashed subpoena issued by plaintiff directing YAHOO! Inc. to produce all emails sent or received by individual defendant during specific time period in light of privacy and privilege concerns, but advised that plaintiff could obtain a new subpoena that was limited in scope

Nature of Case: Breach of employment agreement and wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc. v. Adams, 2007 WL 789042 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 14, 2007)

Key Insight: Court overruled plaintiff?s objection to Rule 30(b)(6) notice of deposition seeking testimony of person most knowledgeable about plaintiff?s computers/mainframe, which also requested that the deponent bring the mainframe or the ability to access the mainframe with him/her at the time of the deposition; court found that the information was relevant and discoverable, subject to the noticing party?s concession to take the deposition at the place of the mainframe

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Mainframe computer

Haka v. Lincoln County, 246 F.R.D. 577 (W.D. Wis. 2007)

Key Insight: Balancing relevant factors, court ruled that fairness and efficiency required parties to proceed with search for ESI incrementally and limited initial search to emails stored on hard drives; court instructed plaintiff to narrow his search terms, and any additional searches would occur only by joint agreement or court order; parties to share equally the costs of performing initial keyword search, but defendant to pay full cost of privilege/relevance review

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

Amersham Biosciences Corp. v. PerkinElmer, Inc, 2007 WL 842038 (D.N.J. Mar. 15, 2007) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of that portion of its January 31, 2007 order adopting magistrate judge’s finding that plaintiff had waived any privilege that may have applied to the 37 Non-Lotus Notes Documents

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2007 WL 1308388 (W.D. La. May 1, 2007)

Key Insight: District court upheld magistrate judge’s January 22, 2007 memorandum order and related protective order, as such orders were not clearly erroneous or contrary to law

Nature of Case: Design firm sued former vice president under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Former employee’s home computer and new work computer

Corvello v. New England Gas Co., Inc., 243 F.R.D. 28 (D.R.I. 2007)

Key Insight: Court concluded that any privilege that may have attached to documents inadvertently produced on CD was waived, since non-party?s counsel failed to exercise due care when he produced CD without first reviewing it, failed to immediately accept party?s offer to temporarily halt its document review after he was alerted that some of the documents on CD appeared to be internal communications with counsel, and furnished an inadequate privilege log after two-week delay

Nature of Case: Litigation between gas company and landowners

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged documents inadvertently produced on CD

In re Subpoena to Chronotek Sys., Inc., 2007 WL 2177013 (S.D. Tex. July 27, 2007)

Key Insight: Magistrate judge adopted special master’s recommendations regarding motion to compel production of source code, and ordered Chronotek to produce the portions of its source code, if any, that incorporated particular technology subject to an appropriate protective order, or, if source code did not incorporate particular technology at issue, affidavit of knowledgeable person attesting to same

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Square D Co. v. Scott Elec. Co., 2007 WL 3488809 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 14, 2007)

Key Insight: Declining to impose sanctions at this stage of litigation, court reiterated its prior order requiring defendant to submit to a forensic inspection of its computer systems which record its purchases and sales of Square D products and its inventory of such products, with such inspection to be incurred at defendant’s sole expense and cost; court further denied defendant’s motion for protective order for lack of good cause

Nature of Case: Circuit breaker manufacturer alleged that defendants unlawfully imported, distributed, and sold counterfeit Square D products

Electronic Data Involved: Defendant’s computer systems

John B. v. Goetz, 2007 WL 4198266 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 26, 2007)

Key Insight: Where goal of prior discovery orders authorizing immediate forensic copying of computers of defendants’ 50 key custodians by plaintiff?s expert, escorted by United States Marshall, was to protect against defendants? destruction of responsive information in light of defendants? persistent and contumacious refusals to produce ESI, court denied motion for stay of orders pending appeal, finding that the class?s interests far outweighed any potential harm to defendants in the execution of the orders

Nature of Case: Class action on behalf of 550,000 children seeking to enforce their rights under federal law to various medical services

Electronic Data Involved: Computer systems of defendant Tennessee state agencies

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