Tag:Motion for Protective Order

1
Marshall & Swift, L.P. v. Crawford & Co., 2006 WL 319262 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2006)
2
Friedman v. Superior Court, 2006 WL 2497981 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2006) (Not Officially Published)
3
Synthes Spine Co., L.P. v. Walden, 232 F.R.D. 460 (E.D. Pa. 2005)
4
Pamlab, L.L.C. v. Rite Aid Corp., 2005 WL 589573 (E.D. La. Mar. 3, 2005)
5
Etzion v. Etzion, 796 N.Y.S.2d 844 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005)
6
United States v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 295 (E.D. Mo. 2005)
7
Public Relations Soc’y of Am., Inc. v. Road Runner High Speed Online, 799 N.Y.S.2d 847 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005)
8
BG Real Estate Servs., Inc. v. Am. Equity Ins. Co., 2005 WL 1309048 (E.D. La. May 18, 2005)
9
Cahill v. Doe, 879 A.2d 943 (Del. Super. Ct. 2005)
10
Stamps v. Encore Receivable Mgmt., Inc., 232 F.R.D. 419 (N.D. Ga. 2005)

Marshall & Swift, L.P. v. Crawford & Co., 2006 WL 319262 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2006)

Key Insight: Court granted defendant’s motion for reconsideration and clarification of order extending discovery cut off, confirming that defendant would be allowed to engage in limited discovery in order to rebut plaintiff’s evidence of software usage documented in plaintiff’s spreadsheets, and to explore the source data for entries on the spreadsheets

Nature of Case: Plaintiff sought damages stemming from defendant’s use of plaintiff’s claims software

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheet

Friedman v. Superior Court, 2006 WL 2497981 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2006) (Not Officially Published)

Key Insight: Finding requests for production too broad and not reasonably particularized, appellate court concluded that trial court had erred in, among other things, not adequately resolving the question of how burdensome compliance with production requests would have proven to nonparties, where nonparties? counsel opined that it would take 5,260 hours to review email, at cost of $1,393,900, and requesting party?s expert estimated only 10 hours for such review; appellate court granted writ and vacated trial court’s orders

Nature of Case: Nonparties sought writ of mandate overturning trial court’s orders granting motion to compel depositions and production of documents pursuant to subpoenas

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Synthes Spine Co., L.P. v. Walden, 232 F.R.D. 460 (E.D. Pa. 2005)

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiff to produce all materials that plaintiff’s counsel furnished to plaintiff’s testifying expert, regardless of privilege or claimed work product protection, including emails, summaries, spreadsheets and draft expert reports

Nature of Case: Employer sought to enforce restrictive covenants against former employees

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, spreadsheets, draft expert reports

Pamlab, L.L.C. v. Rite Aid Corp., 2005 WL 589573 (E.D. La. Mar. 3, 2005)

Key Insight: Court modified Rule 30(b)(6) notice of deposition and ordered defendant to produce a representative to testify concerning various matters, including defendant’s document destruction and retention policies for paper and electronic information, and what information sought in particular interrogatory could be retrieved from computer system and what could only be retrieved manually

Nature of Case: Drug company claimed drug store chain improperly substituted one drug for another

Electronic Data Involved: Computer databases

Etzion v. Etzion, 796 N.Y.S.2d 844 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005)

Key Insight: Where husband consented to discovery of financial matters but resisted plaintiff’s broad request for access to all documents on all computers, court set out detailed protocol for the copying and review of computer data with oversight by court-appointed referee

Nature of Case: Divorce proceeding

Electronic Data Involved: Data on hard drives

United States v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 295 (E.D. Mo. 2005)

Key Insight: Inadvertent disclosure of government’s privileged litigation report by copying report onto CD-ROMs produced to over 50 defense attorneys did not effect waiver of attorney-client privilege where (1) government took reasonable precautions to prevent inadvertent disclosure by segregating privileged documents in extensive privilege review of more than 61,000 pages, (2) only one privileged document was inadvertently produced, (3) government acted promptly by alerting all counsel of inadvertent production within one month after learning of the disclosure, and (4) the interest of justice favored relieving the government of its error

Nature of Case: Environmental litigation

Electronic Data Involved: CD-ROM

Public Relations Soc’y of Am., Inc. v. Road Runner High Speed Online, 799 N.Y.S.2d 847 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005)

Key Insight: Finding that individual had stated cognizable defamation claim against anonymous author of offending email, court denied email author?s application to vacate order requiring internet service provider to disclose email account information

Nature of Case: Defamation claim based on offending email message

Electronic Data Involved: Email author identity

BG Real Estate Servs., Inc. v. Am. Equity Ins. Co., 2005 WL 1309048 (E.D. La. May 18, 2005)

Key Insight: Request for production of “computer hard drive” was overly broad and responding party need not produce entire hard drive; however, to the extent that hard drive contained non-privileged items that were responsive to other requests as to which responding party’s objections were not sustained, such items should be produced

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage and unauthorized settlement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Cahill v. Doe, 879 A.2d 943 (Del. Super. Ct. 2005)

Key Insight: Court denied John Doe’s motion for protective order preventing internet service provider from disclosing his identity, finding that (1) plaintiffs had, in good faith, alleged that John Doe had used the internet as a tool for defamation, (2) the identifying information sought was directly and materially related to thir claim, and (3) the information could not be obtained from any other source

Nature of Case: Elected town council member and wife sued anonymous user of an internet “blog” who posted defamatory statements about plaintiffs on blog

Electronic Data Involved: Blog posting

Stamps v. Encore Receivable Mgmt., Inc., 232 F.R.D. 419 (N.D. Ga. 2005)

Key Insight: Plaintiff was not entitled to protective order delaying, until after key depositions were taken, production of tape recording of message left by defendant’s representative on plaintiff’s home answering machine, since tape constituted substantive evidence and was not mere impeachment evidence, and issues of fairness weighed in favor of production

Nature of Case: Debtor alleged violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Tape recording of message left on answering machine

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