Tag:Motion to Compel

1
Metavante Corp. v. Emigrant Sav. Bank, 2008 WL 1969596 (E.D. Wis. May 5, 2008)
2
Yu v. New York City Hous. Dev. Corp., 2008 WL 2152138 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2008)
3
Mon River Towing, Inc. v. Indus. Terminal & Salvage Co., 2008 WL 2412946 (W.D. Pa. June 10, 2008)
4
U.S. ex rel. Her v. Regions Fin. Corp., 2008 WL 4493237 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 3, 2008)
5
Ford Motor Co. v. Hall-Edwards, 997 So.2d 1148 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)
6
Eckhardt v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2008 WL 1995310 (W.D.N.C. May 6, 2008)
7
Peterson v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2008 WL 1930453 (C.D. Ill. May 1, 2008)
8
E.E.O.C. v. Beauty Enters., Inc., 2008 WL 3359252 (D. Conn. Aug. 8, 2008)
9
Baxter Healthcare Holding, Inc. v. Fresenius Medical Care Holding, Inc., 2008 WL 4547190 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2008)
10
AIU Ins. Co. v. TIG Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5062030 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2008)

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

Mon River Towing, Inc. v. Indus. Terminal & Salvage Co., 2008 WL 2412946 (W.D. Pa. June 10, 2008)

Key Insight: Nothing that in its estimation, “‘a print-out of computer data’ is significantly different than the report requested here by Defendant or any ‘analyses’ of documents,” court ruled that Rule 34 does not require responding party to create or generate responsive materials in specific form requested by the moving party; however, to extent that party merely requested computer print-out of information at issue, such print-outs fell within bounds of Rule 34 and should be produced

Nature of Case: Negligence, lost profits and indemnification

Electronic Data Involved: Computer printouts

U.S. ex rel. Her v. Regions Fin. Corp., 2008 WL 4493237 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 3, 2008)

Key Insight: Where computer search identified 7845 potentially responsive files but defendant argued production would be unduly burdensome and where plaintiffs acknowledged that a 10% sampling would be sufficient, court ordered submission of computer printout of all potentially relevant files to the court and used online program to randomly select sampling for production; court granted plaintiffs? discovery requests for additional data related to loans only as they pertained to 10% sampling

Nature of Case: Violation of Federal False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: 7845 computer files

Ford Motor Co. v. Hall-Edwards, 997 So.2d 1148 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

Key Insight: Where trial court granted plaintiff access to all defendant?s databases, including an exclusively privileged database, based upon an unproven assumption regarding ease of production and upon defendant?s violation of a prior court order by failing to provide sufficient information regarding its search efforts, appellate court quashed order noting that defendant?s violations were correctable and non-prejudicial and thus could not justify invasion of the attorney-client privilege or work product

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Eckhardt v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2008 WL 1995310 (W.D.N.C. May 6, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff established through deposition testimony that discoverable documents existed which had not been produced, but court found no bad faith, court declined to give adverse inference instruction and instead allowed plaintiff to seek missing documents from backup tapes and to corroborate substance of any missing documents from witnesses where documents themselves could be recovered

Nature of Case: Alleged violations of Americans with Disabilities Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email; backup tapes

Peterson v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2008 WL 1930453 (C.D. Ill. May 1, 2008)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs’ request for sanctions, additional depositions and for an order compelling production of electronic data and signal plans in light of plaintiffs’ failure to diligently pursue such requests and failure to establish need for additional discovery at late stage of litigation; court granted plaintiffs opportunity to show that motion was substantially justified and deferred consideration of defendant’s request for expenses incurred in opposing motion

Nature of Case: Claims arising from collision between freight train and automobile

Electronic Data Involved: Data from event recorders and other components and equipment of the crossing signal system

E.E.O.C. v. Beauty Enters., Inc., 2008 WL 3359252 (D. Conn. Aug. 8, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs argued that several BEI supervisors had testified they had not been instructed to preserve documents related to case, court agreed that defense counsel?s litigation hold letter was privileged and ordered BEI to disclose date on which letter was sent and names of recipients

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Letter from BEI’s counsel to BEI supervisors advising them to implement a litigation hold

Baxter Healthcare Holding, Inc. v. Fresenius Medical Care Holding, Inc., 2008 WL 4547190 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2008)

Key Insight: Finding each email in string a ?separate communication for which a privilege may or may not be applicable? court rejected defendants? argument of extreme burden and ordered production of ?proper privilege log? identifying required information for each message; court ordered defendants to identify author, recipient, or copyee of redacted documents already in plaintiffs possession finding it ?unreasonable? to require of plaintiffs because defendants were obligated to justify privilege claim

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

AIU Ins. Co. v. TIG Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5062030 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2008)

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel additional electronic searching as to certain custodians where defendant established their potential relevance and where plaintiff failed to establish additional search would be unduly burdensome or that custodians had no relevance to litigation; court noted that plaintiff?s assertions that documents referencing custodians at issue were drafted before the popularization of email does not excuse obligation to search for potentially relevant materials even where the search may be ?fruitless?

Nature of Case: Breach of reinsurance contracts

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email of particular custodians

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.