Tag:Motion to Compel

1
Opperman v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5071044 (D.N.J. Nov. 24, 2008)
2
Superior Prod. P?ship d/b/a/ PBSI v. Gordon Auto Body Parts Co., Ltd., 2008 WL 5111184 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 2, 2008)
3
Overlap Inc. v. Alliance Bernstein Invs., Inc., 2008 WL 5780994 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 29, 2008)
4
Relion v. Hydra Fuel Cell Corp., 2008 WL 5122828 (D. Or. Dec. 4, 2008)
5
Karim v. Natural Stone Indus., Inc., 2008 WL 429627 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 18, 2008)
6
Matthews v. Baumhaft, 2008 WL 2224126 (E.D. Mich. May 29, 2008)
7
Reino de Espana v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, 2008 WL 3851957 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2008)
8
Musarra v. Digital Dish, Inc., 2008 WL 4758699 (D. Ohio Oct. 30, 2008)
9
Oldenkamp v. United Am. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4682226 (N.D. Okla. Oct. 21, 2008)
10
Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Fresenius Med. Care Holding, Inc., 2008 WL 5214283 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2008)

Opperman v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5071044 (D.N.J. Nov. 24, 2008)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs? request for access to third party?s proprietary software where court determined software and its underlying processes were relevant to plaintiffs? claims and that all less intrusive means to obtain the necessary information had been exhausted; court?s order allowed access to the software by plaintiffs? expert but protected the confidentiality of the information with a protective order that placed limitations on who may access the software and limited the use of the information solely to the litigation

Nature of Case: Challenge to accuracy of insurance company estimates for fire damage

Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary software

Superior Prod. P?ship d/b/a/ PBSI v. Gordon Auto Body Parts Co., Ltd., 2008 WL 5111184 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 2, 2008)

Key Insight: Court ordered electronically stored documents produced in native format in light of preference for such production in Rule 26 and where no obstacles to production were articulated; where plaintiff requested production of large volume of relevant documents and where deposition witness indicated that the information would be easily retrieved from defendant?s electronic database, court recognized potential burden to defendant and ordered production of sampling of documents to allow for determination of the need to produce the rest; court also ordered parties to meet and confer regarding the necessary volume of production of documents related to cost where documents were necessary to address the accuracy of previously produced summary and thus production of all such documents was not required, where information was available in electronic format, though, defendants were ordered to produce it

Nature of Case: Predatory pricing

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Relion v. Hydra Fuel Cell Corp., 2008 WL 5122828 (D. Or. Dec. 4, 2008)

Key Insight: Finding that plaintiff ?did not pursue all reasonable means of preserving privilege? court found that attorney client privilege was waived when plaintiff unintentionally produced two privileged emails in hard copy despite conducting a privilege review and because plaintiffs failed to discover the production until revealed by defendants despite having both paper and electronic, text-searchable copies of the documents produced

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Karim v. Natural Stone Indus., Inc., 2008 WL 429627 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 18, 2008)

Key Insight: Where computer hard drive was not relevant and material to plaintiff’s ability to return to employment, evidence regarding plaintiff?s employability was ascertainable by other means, and it would be impossible to discern plaintiff?s computer usage beyond the use testified to at deposition given that several members of plaintiff’s household also used the computer, court denied as improperly invasive third-party defendant?s request for a ?clone? of plaintiff’s home computer hard drive

Nature of Case: Injured construction worker sued for violations of New York Labor Law and for common law negligence

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s home computer

Matthews v. Baumhaft, 2008 WL 2224126 (E.D. Mich. May 29, 2008)

Key Insight: District judge upheld as neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law magistrate judge?s order for forensic imaging of defendants’ computers, where defendants had refused to provide documents plaintiff requested, providing only “sample” appraisals, and where relevant appraisals and software used to generate appraisals resided in computer and were relevant to parties’ claims and defenses

Nature of Case: Fraud, RICO and breach of fiduciary duty claims

Electronic Data Involved: Appraisals and software used to generate appraisals

Reino de Espana v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, 2008 WL 3851957 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2008)

Key Insight: District court overruled Spain’s objections to Magistrate Judge?s various orders of November 3, 2006, January 25, 2007 and June 6, 2007

Nature of Case: Litigation brought by the government of Spain arising from shipping casualty and oil spill

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Musarra v. Digital Dish, Inc., 2008 WL 4758699 (D. Ohio Oct. 30, 2008)

Key Insight: Where non-party indicated inability to perform electronic search of subpoenaed communication logs and estimated more than 100 hours of manual searching to respond and where subpoenaed information exceeded relevant scope of claims, court declined to impose ?unreasonable burden? on non-party and denied motion to compel; where identification and production of subpoenaed email would result in ?massive expense? but where plaintiffs offered to limit their request to a sampling, court decline to rule pending non-party?s response

Nature of Case: Wage and hour employment case

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Oldenkamp v. United Am. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4682226 (N.D. Okla. Oct. 21, 2008)

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel where plaintiff failed to offer any evidence that requested emails existed and where defendant offered sworn testimony that all responsive document had been produced; court also denied plaintiffs? motion for spoliation sanctions where plaintiff offered no evidence that allegedly spoliated materials existed; where defendant indicated its inability to locate a particular document but produced audio tapes detailing the contents, court declined to impose sanctions because plaintiffs offered no evidence of defendant?s intentional destruction of evidence and because plaintiffs suffered no prejudice in light of alternative source for requested information

Nature of Case: Litigation concerning insurance company’s denial of benefits

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Fresenius Med. Care Holding, Inc., 2008 WL 5214283 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendant offered to produce a witness to authenticate a ?manageable number of documents? that plaintiffs would ?actually use at trial?, court denied plaintiffs? motion to compel production of a witness knowledgeable enough to authenticate thousands of documents and more than 580 CD-Rom discs of electronic files and source code and concluded that plaintiffs? motion was ?unreasonable and not supported by either the rules or the law?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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