Tag:Motion to Compel

1
Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 2008 WL 2487835 (W.D. Pa. June 16, 2008)
2
Lipari v. U.S. Bancorp, N.A., 2008 WL 2874373 (D. Kan. July 22, 2008)
3
Koosharem Corp. v. Spec Personnel, LLC, 2008 WL 4458864 (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 2008)
4
Flying J, Inc. v. TA Operating Corp., 2008 WL 5449714 (D. Utah Dec. 31, 2008)
5
Adams v. United States, 2008 WL 346017 (D. Idaho Feb. 6, 2008)
6
Commerce Benefits Group, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 2008 WL 657838 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 6, 2008)
7
Metavante Corp. v. Emigrant Sav. Bank, 2008 WL 1969596 (E.D. Wis. May 5, 2008)
8
Yu v. New York City Hous. Dev. Corp., 2008 WL 2152138 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2008)
9
Anaheim Gardens v. United States, 2008 WL 2043243 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 29, 2008)
10
U.S. v. Soliman, 2008 WL 4490623 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2008)

Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 2008 WL 2487835 (W.D. Pa. June 16, 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendant had produced significant number of requested documents and ESI ?on a rolling basis? but production was still not complete four months past original deadline and defendant claimed its vendor had just provided another 179,180 ESI documents, court struck compromise between respective deadlines urged by parties (August 15 and June 30, 2008) and ordered defendant to complete its production on or before July 23, 2008; court also issued stern warning that it would not hesitate to impose sanctions in the future for any discovery abuses

Nature of Case: Antitrust and unfair competition claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Lipari v. U.S. Bancorp, N.A., 2008 WL 2874373 (D. Kan. July 22, 2008)

Key Insight: Noting that Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) was disjunctive and allowed a party to provide either a copy or description of documents, court found that plaintiff had complied with rule by providing CD containing documents to defendants (regardless of whether document descriptions contained in disclosure statement were insufficient or whether CD was ?searchable?), but directed plaintiff to file supplemental disclosure statement in which he affirmatively states that documents contained on CD were documents he may use to support his claims

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraud, trade secret misappropriation and breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: CD containing documents listed in plaintiff?s Rule 26(a)(1) disclosure statement (consisting of more than 11,000 pages)

Flying J, Inc. v. TA Operating Corp., 2008 WL 5449714 (D. Utah Dec. 31, 2008)

Key Insight: Court declined to enforce prior Order compelling discovery where defendants produced documents from limited time frame but could produce no more because the information was recycled pursuant to its previously disclosed retention policy, prior to defendant?s notice of the lawsuit; court declined to compel production of alternative information because it was not what plaintiffs originally sought or what was required by the Order

Nature of Case: Unlawful conspiracy to prevent and suppress competition

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on back up tapes

Adams v. United States, 2008 WL 346017 (D. Idaho Feb. 6, 2008)

Key Insight: Stating that it was convinced that DuPont was proceeding as fast as it could, given privilege concerns and the sheer bulk of the documents at issue, court denied plaintiffs’ request that DuPont provide a more expedited production of electronic documents

Nature of Case: Tort claims for crop damage allegedly resulting from government’s spraying of herbicide

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

Commerce Benefits Group, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 2008 WL 657838 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 6, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff did not demonstrate that focus of the defendants’ search was not reasonably directed toward finding responsive documents, and failed to establish that relevance and necessity of any further discovery into email backup tapes outweighed burden and expense that would ensue, not to mention further delay which would certainly follow, court denied motion to compel

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI stored on backup tapes

Metavante Corp. v. Emigrant Sav. Bank, 2008 WL 1969596 (E.D. Wis. May 5, 2008)

Key Insight: Where source code had probative value and would be covered by protective order, court ordered defendant to produce it and suggested that parties coordinate to limit its disclosure to only specified experts and individuals at Metavante with requisite technical expertise needed to effectively evaluate the source code

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Yu v. New York City Hous. Dev. Corp., 2008 WL 2152138 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2008)

Key Insight: Ruling on various discovery matters, court noted plaintiff?s belated complaint that documents were not produced in ESI format and defendants? offer to convert their document production into OCR files, ?a more searchable form than the PDF format it originally provided,? and ordered plaintiff to advise defense counsel within three days if he desired such conversion; court further noted that plaintiff?s request for email was overbroad and that he had failed to justify requiring defendants to undertake a large-scale search of their backup tapes; court further ordered plaintiff to return employer-issued laptop computer to defendant

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email, laptop

Anaheim Gardens v. United States, 2008 WL 2043243 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 29, 2008)

Key Insight: Court granted motion brought by plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 37(a)(2)(B), Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, and issued order compelling defendant to produce witness or witnesses who could fully testify about document retention practices and policies of HUD and actual steps taken to produce documents

Nature of Case: Owners of low-income housing who had received mortgage insurance from Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) brought action alleging regulatory taking

Electronic Data Involved: Document retention policies

U.S. v. Soliman, 2008 WL 4490623 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2008)

Key Insight: Court ordered government to re-produce CD-roms containing 60,000 documents ?in some accessible manner that is readily understood by the parties? where government?s previous production provided defendant with no index or way to locate a particular document or cross reference between disks and where despite no preference within the rules between inspection and copying, the government had undertaken to copy the materials for plaintiff

Nature of Case: Criminal prosecution for healthcare fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Over 60,000 documents produced on CD

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