Tag:Motion for Protective Order

1
Galvin v. Gillette Co., 2005 WL 1155253 (Mass. Super. Apr. 28, 2005)
2
Hollingsworth v. Time Warner Cable, 812 N.E.2d 976 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
3
United States v. Sungard Data Sys., 173 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2001)
4
Itzenson v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 2000 WL 1507422 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 10, 2000)
5
Wiginton v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 229 F.R.D. 568 (N.D. Ill. 2004)
6
Aero Products Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 2004 WL 417193 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2004)
7
In re John Doe Proceeding, 680 N.W.2d 792 (Wis. 2004)
8
Williams v. DuPont, 119 F.R.D. 648 (W.D. Ky. 1987)
9
Braxton v. Farmer’s Ins. Group, 209 F.R.D. 651 (N.D. Ala. 2002)
10
Johnson v. Bryco Arms, 222 F.R.D. 48 (E.D.N.Y. 2004)

Galvin v. Gillette Co., 2005 WL 1155253 (Mass. Super. Apr. 28, 2005)

Key Insight: Where much of the material sought did not appear to touch on or be relevant to the matter under investigation by the Secretary, i.e., whether fraud may be present in the UBS or Goldman, Sachs fairness opinions based on information provided by Gillette, court quashed broad subpoena issued to Gillette without prejudice to the Secretary issuing a new subpoena more narrowly drafted

Nature of Case: Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts issued subpoena under state securities act in connection with pending merger

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Hollingsworth v. Time Warner Cable, 812 N.E.2d 976 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)

Key Insight: Where defendant voluntarily divulged a privileged email communication at unemployment hearing and in response to discovery request, defendant waived any privilege with respect to the communication and to testimony and documents regarding the same subject matter; trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for return of the communication and for protective order, and in denying plaintiff’s motion to compel

Nature of Case: Wrongful discharge

Electronic Data Involved: Email

United States v. Sungard Data Sys., 173 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2001)

Key Insight: Motion to preclude in-house counsel from having access to confidential information produced by competitors denied; court established detailed protective order for handling of confidential information

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

Itzenson v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 2000 WL 1507422 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 10, 2000)

Key Insight: Discovery deadline extended and defendant ordered to “use every practicable means” to identify requested claims files; if defendant truly cannot segregate the claim files, defendant would be directed to make available a representative with requisite knowledge and skill to assist plaintiff’s representative in reviewing and identifying as promptly as possible each unsegregated file which met plaintiff’s criteria

Nature of Case: ERISA action to recover death benefits under employee benefit plan

Electronic Data Involved: Database re insurance claims

Wiginton v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 229 F.R.D. 568 (N.D. Ill. 2004)

Key Insight: Court created its own eight-factor test by adding one more factor to the Zubulake seven-factor test, and determined that cost-shifting was appropriate (responding party 25% and requesting party 75%)

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on backup tapes

Aero Products Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 2004 WL 417193 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2004)

Key Insight: Motion for sanctions for destruction of email denied since plaintiff failed to follow procedure set forth in court’s prior order which would have required plaintiff to file a petition seeking the appointment of a computer forensics expert, and instead waited over seven months to bring the issue to the court in the form of a motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted email

In re John Doe Proceeding, 680 N.W.2d 792 (Wis. 2004)

Key Insight: Supreme Court of Wisconsin quashed as overbroad a “John Doe” subpoena seeking all digital computer information or data maintained by the legislature’s technology services bureau, stored by or on behalf of certain named elected officials, any person who had ever been employed in their offices, as well as anyone who had ever been employed in the legislative caucuses for both parties or, in the alternative, the backup tapes from December 15, 2001, for the entire legislative branch of government

Nature of Case: Criminal investigation relating to political caucuses and actions of certain legislators

Electronic Data Involved: All digital computer information or data, and backup tapes for the entire legislative branch of government

Williams v. DuPont, 119 F.R.D. 648 (W.D. Ky. 1987)

Key Insight: Employer entitled to discover, at its own expense, copies of database on computer disk, code books and user manual created by EEOC’s expert from information produced by employer to allow for effective cross-examination of EEOC’s expert; in addition, employer to pay “fair portion of the fees and expenses incurred” in the past by EEOC for the expert’s work in encoding the requested data and formulating the database

Nature of Case: Consolidated Title VII action brought by individual and EEOC

Electronic Data Involved: Database created by EEOC’s expert from information produced by employer

Braxton v. Farmer’s Ins. Group, 209 F.R.D. 651 (N.D. Ala. 2002)

Key Insight: Non-party subpoena issued by plaintiff to insurance agents for email and electronic documents touching on, relating to or concerning use of consumer credit reports in setting homeowners’ insurance premiums quashed as unduly burdensome, in absence of showing that defendant’s production of such materials was inadequate

Nature of Case: Class action alleging that insurer violated Fair Credit Reporting Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email and documents in electronic format

Johnson v. Bryco Arms, 222 F.R.D. 48 (E.D.N.Y. 2004)

Key Insight: Federal database containing firearms tracing and licensing data which was maintained by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms was relevant to plaintiffs’ claims, and was not protected by any law enforcement privilege when produced subject to an order of confidentiality; motion to quash subpoena denied

Nature of Case: Negligence action against manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of weapon used in robbery

Electronic Data Involved: Database maintained by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.