Motion for Protective Order – Page 8 – Electronic Discovery Law

Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Wake Forest Univ. Health Sciences, No. SA-11-CV-163-XR, 2014 WL 1787813 (W.D. Tex. May 5, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for protective order barring defendants from obtaining CEO’s e-mails during discovery, finding that CEO had potentially relevant information that defendants might not be able to obtain from other custodians and that CEO’s high level role did not make discovery of his e-mails any more or less burdensome than producing e-mails of other executives

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: E-mail of CEO who joined plaintiff after lawsuit was filed

In re Indeco Sales, Inc., No. 09-14-00405-CV, 2014 WL 5490943 (Tex. App. Oct. 30, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Ruling on petition for writ of mandamus, state appellate court found that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motion to compel: (1) production of plaintiff’s cell phone for forensic examination and data extraction (to retrieve stored and deleted photographs and videotapes depicting plaintiff subsequent to accident, stored and deleted text messages, emails and audio recordings referencing or reflecting plaintiff’s alleged depression, etc.) and (2) production of information, data, posts and conversations from plaintiff’s Facebook page, because the requests were not properly limited in time and scope, were overly broad and could have been more narrowly tailored, and constituted an unwarranted intrusion

Nature of Case: Personal injury claims stemming from motor vehicle accident

Electronic Data Involved: Data stored on plaintiff’s cell phone; and information, data, posts and conversations from plaintiff’s Facebook page

Zeller v. S. Cent. Emergency Med. Servs., No. 1:13-CV-2584, 2014 WL 2094340 (M.D. Pa. May 20, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court ruled that plaintiff was entitled to a “first review” of results of independent forensic examination of plaintiff’s email account, and that plaintiff and defendants would share equally in cost of restoring and searching plaintiff’s emails, up to a maximum contribution by plaintiff of $1,500

Nature of Case: Family and Medical Leave Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s emails

Baker v. Bayer Healthcare Pharm., Inc., No. 13-cv-00490-THE (KAW), 2014 WL 5513854 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Finding that sales call notes that plaintiff sought, as opposed to only those concerning plaintiff’s healthcare provider, were relevant, but agreeing that producing all sales call notes for tens of thousands of healthcare providers was unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of this single-plaintiff case, court sought to strike a balance between plaintiff’s entitlement to information relevant to her claims and need to ease defendant’s burden of production, and ordered production of sales call notes that had already been produced in related multidistrict litigation involving over 1,500 plaintiffs; court noted that production in related MDL was limited to the plaintiffs? specific prescribing physicians but that the volume that production would yield would give plaintiff a substantial cross-section of sales call notes without burdening defendant with production of sales call notes for every physician in every market in which the device was promoted

Nature of Case: Single-plaintiff products liability lawsuit

Electronic Data Involved: Databases containing sales call notes from conversations between defendant’s sales representatives and healthcare providers

FDIC v. Baldini, No. 1:12-7050, 2014 WL 1302479 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 28, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for protective order, rejecting plaintiff’s proposed protocol that would require defendants to supply search terms (which plaintiff would then apply to the ESI) and require defendants to pay ESI copying costs; court ordered plaintiff to fashion initial set of search terms and work with defendants to reach agreement on search terms to be used, and set out protocol to be followed by the parties for the production

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duties, negligence

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Shire LLC v. Amneal Pharms., LLC, No. 2:11-cv-03781 (SRC)(CLW), 2014 WL 1509238 (D.N.J. Jan, 10, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Weighing five factors to resolve the issue of waiver by inadvertent disclosure, court found that the use of analytical software without attorney review did not constitute reasonable steps to prevent inadvertent disclosure, and also faulted defendants? efforts to rectify the error, noting that defendants did not conduct a remedial investigation until after plaintiff alerted defendants that the production appeared to contain privileged documents; court concluded that, in light of the fact that the inadvertent disclosure was the result of a failure to review, justice would be served by a finding of waiver

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Documents protected by attorney-client privilege

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., v. East-West Logistics, LLC, No. 1-12-1111, 2014 WL 1292905 (Ill. App. Ct. Mar. 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered defendant to pay $3,026 of plaintiff’s requested $18,771 electronic discovery costs, as court had discretion under court rule to issue a protective order as justice required, had ordered the parties to confer on the scope of production and reserved the allocation of costs, and had properly balanced defendant’s need for the discovery material against the expense of the production incurred by plaintiff

Nature of Case: Action to collect amounts due under credit agreement and enforce guaranty

Electronic Data Involved: Electronically stored documents

Stinson v. City of New York, no. 10 Civ. 4228(RWS), 2014 WL 5090031 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants inadvertently produced two privileged documents along with large volume of ESI, and 14 days later notified plaintiffs of such inadvertent production, and six days after that filed motion for order to show cause to compel plaintiffs to immediately return the privileged documents, court rejected plaintiffs? contention that they should be allowed to retain and review a copy of the privileged documents for the purpose of opposing the privilege claim and ordered plaintiffs to return all copies of the privileged documents to defendants; plaintiffs would be permitted to rely on any material learned prior to defendants? letter in challenging defendants? assertion of privilege

Nature of Case: Section 1983 class action against city, police department commissioner, and police officers, alleging defendants had a policy of issuing unconstitutional summonses in violation of First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

Cochran v. Caldera Med., Inc., No. 12-5109, 2014 WL 1608664 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 22, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: In case where defendant represented that it was currently defending approximately 1,709 claims nationwide involving its various products, and that it had limited financial resources, court denied defendant’s request that plaintiffs share in the cost of producing documents and ESI as defendant did not demonstrate that ESI sought by plaintiffs was inaccessible; court further noted that, given the importance of the discovery requests to plaintiffs’ ability to prove their claims, and the seriousness of the injuries alleged by plaintiffs, the burden or expense of the discovery requests was outweighed by the likely benefit to plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Product liability re implantable surgical meshes

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, text messages, voicemail messages

BLX Commercial Capital, LLC v. Bilco Tools, Inc., No. 14-0306, 2014 WL 6684929 (E.D. La. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants requested emails from six employees and all emails regarding liquidation and appraisal of Bilco, and request was further narrowed by the use of eight search terms, plaintiff?s counsel was unable to articulate a specific reason why emails were not relevant and represented to the court that he had not actually reviewed any of the emails at issue to determine their relevancy, court denied plaintiff?s motion for protective order and granted defendants? motion to compel production of emails

Nature of Case: Breach of loan agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Email of current and former BLX employees

Tag:Motion for Protective Order