Tag:Motion for Protective Order

1
Hayse v. City of Melvindale, No. Civ. A. 17-13294 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 2, 2018)
2
United States v. Tolbert (No. 14-3761 (D.N.M. July 27, 2018), 2018)
3
In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, No. 16 C 8637 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2018)
4
Webastro Thermo & Comfort North America, Inc., et al. v. Bestop, Inc. (Eastern District of Michigan, 2018)
5
In re Accent Delight International, Ltd., Nos. 16-MC-125 / 18-MC (L.-50 (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2018)
6
Wooten v. BNSF Railway Company (D. Mont., 2018)
7
Delago v. Tarabochia (No. C17-1822RSL (W.D. Wash. May 4, 2018), 2018)
8
Cen Com, Inc. v. Numerex Corp. (W.D. Wash., 2018)
9
EEOC v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc., No. 15-cv-256 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 21, 2018)
10
In re Abilify (Aripiprazole) Product Liability Litigation, No. 3:16-md-2734 (N.D. Fla. , 2018)

Hayse v. City of Melvindale, No. Civ. A. 17-13294 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 2, 2018)

Key Insight: Non-party ESI must be in the possession, custody or control; phone not city owned, no consent given by city official- did not require production; prior phone and service provider required supplemental briefing regarding service provider contractual obligations

Nature of Case: Civil Rights

Electronic Data Involved: Cell Phone/Text Messages

Keywords: text messages, phones, service provider, consent, ownership

View Case Opinion

United States v. Tolbert (No. 14-3761 (D.N.M. July 27, 2018), 2018)

Key Insight: Whether a search warrant was necessary to ascertain the Defendant’s personal information from a non-governmental third party organization that was forwarded e-mails containing evidence that Defendant possessed child pornography

Nature of Case: criminal prosecution – child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: e-mails, personally identifying information attached to e-email account

Keywords: “The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution protects persons against unreasonable searches and seizures”, “Tolbert moves to suppress”, “Motion to Suppress Evidence”

View Case Opinion

In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, No. 16 C 8637 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2018)

Key Insight: Undue burden or cost of discovery alleged by defendant.

Nature of Case: antitrust class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI searches upon 12 custodians

Keywords: Has not made a threshold showing, does not satisfy the rule 26(b)(2)(C) factors.

View Case Opinion

Webastro Thermo & Comfort North America, Inc., et al. v. Bestop, Inc. (Eastern District of Michigan, 2018)

Key Insight: Providing evidence of voluminous discovery allows for narrowing of search terms

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

Keywords: Webasto, Jeep,

View Case Opinion

In re Accent Delight International, Ltd., Nos. 16-MC-125 / 18-MC (L.-50 (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2018)

Key Insight: Court limited use of foreign materials to those relevant to the case. Only items where respondent involved were allowed.

Nature of Case: Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Materials used in foreign legal proceedings

Keywords: Foreign Proceedings

View Case Opinion

Delago v. Tarabochia (No. C17-1822RSL (W.D. Wash. May 4, 2018), 2018)

Key Insight: whether certain ESI production requests relating to ESI created both before and after a personal injury incident are proportional to the needs of the case

Nature of Case: personal injury, Jones Act

Electronic Data Involved: text messages, call logs, roaming data logs, phone account information, credit card transaction history, bank account transaction history

Keywords: “defendants are fishing”, ” balance of the benefits and burdens of these post-incident discovery requests are not in defendants’ favor”, “wheelhouse”

View Case Opinion

Cen Com, Inc. v. Numerex Corp. (W.D. Wash., 2018)

Key Insight: relevance of search terms, proportionality

Nature of Case: breach of contract, trade secrets

Keywords: sanctions, motion to compel, search terms, third-party subpoenas, personal capacity, proportionality, attorney’s fees, current version, pending motion for protective order

View Case Opinion

EEOC v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc., No. 15-cv-256 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 21, 2018)

Key Insight: Defendant claimed reviewing 363,000 emails would be unduly burdensome. Court rules that even the expected responsiveness rate of between 8.3% and 15% meant it would be valuable. Court required defendant to review the emails and denied cost shifting requested by defendant.

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Keywords: burdensome, responsiveness, proportionality

View Case Opinion

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