Motion for Protective Order – Page 29 – Electronic Discovery Law

Farmers Ins. Co., Inc. v. Peterson, 81 P.3d 659 (Okl. 2003)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Writ of prohibition issued, vacating lower court’s order requiring defendant to search all of its electronic and hard copy claim files covering three-year period; court suggested alternate approach using statistical sampling technique, but left the particulars of such sampling to parties to litigate in lower court

Nature of Case: Insurance bad faith

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic claim files covering three-year period

Star Tribune v. Minn. Twins P’ship, 659 N.W.2d 287 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Court’s rejection of media’s request for access to discovery documents produced by parties in litigation and covered by protective order was not abuse of discretion; CD-ROM was not filed with court, and thus was not subject to common law right of access

Nature of Case: Media companies brought motion to intervene and modify protective order in third party litigation, seeking access to materials produced in discovery

Electronic Data Involved: CD-ROM containing 9,000 documents

In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Nov. 15, 1993, 846 F. Supp. 11 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Grand jury subpoena demanding production of all computer hard drives and disks of specified individuals (as opposed to specified categories of information) quashed because it was unreasonably broad

Nature of Case: Grand jury proceedings

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives and floppy diskettes

State v. Cartwright, 336 Or. 408, 85 P.3d 305 (2004)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Concluding that defendant had a right to obtain audiotaped prior statements of witnesses for use in cross-examining the individuals whose statements were on the tapes, court noted in footnote: “The audiotapes at issue here are the functional equivalent of written statements. It would be a towering triumph of form over substance to hold that [defendant’s former employer’s] choice of an electronic, rather than a documentary, mode of preserving the witness’ statements puts the statements beyond the reach of a subpoena duces tecum.”

Nature of Case: Criminal sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Audiotapes of witness’ statements made by defendant’s former employer

Hayes v. Compass Group USA, Inc., 202 F.R.D. 363 (D. Conn. 2001)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Defendants required to produce information on all age discrimination claims brought during relevant time frame for which defendants have computer search capabilities; defendants not required to manually search files created prior to installation of computerized case management system

Nature of Case: Age discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Discrimination claims records

Strasser v. Yalamanchi, 669 So.2d 1142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Order allowing plaintiff unrestricted access to defendant’s computer system quashed, because the order allowed plaintiff unrestricted access to defendant’s computer system, including all of his programs and directories, without protection for any privileged or confidential information and without safeguards or restrictions to minimize any potential harm to the computer system

Nature of Case: Breach of contract suit between former partners

Electronic Data Involved: Inspection of computer system to search for financial information

Hildreth Mfg., LLC v. Semco, Inc., 785 N.E.2d 774 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Failure to preserve certain computer hard drives did not warrant sanctions where there was no reasonable possibility that the missing hard drives (which were obtained after protective order was issued) contained evidence of the theft of trade secret information

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related torts

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives

Uniroyal Chem. Co. Inc. v. Syngenta Crop Protection, 224 F.R.D. 53 (D. Conn. 2004)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Where plaintiff demonstrated that allowing defendant unrestricted access to database would result in a clearly defined and serious injury, court held that plaintiff’s “confidential – attorneys’ eyes only” designation was appropriate and denied motion to compel

Nature of Case: Contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Database containing research data

Tag:Motion for Protective Order