Tag:Motion to Compel

1
Yancey v. GMC, 2006 WL 2045894 (N.D. Ohio June 26, 2006)
2
Jordan v. Dillards, Inc., 2006 WL 2873472 (D. Kan. Oct. 5, 2006)
3
Flexsys Ams. LP v. Kumho Tire U.S.A., Inc., 2006 WL 3526794 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 6, 2006)
4
Jinks-Umstead v. England, 232 F.R.D. 142 (D.D.C. 2005)
5
Bd. of Managers of Atrium Condo. v. West 79th St. Corp., 792 N.Y.S.2d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
6
McDougal-Wilson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 232 F.R.D. 246 (E.D.N.C. 2005)
7
Papyrus Tech. Corp. v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 2005 WL 1606059 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2005)
8
Williams v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 226 F.R.D. 144 (D. Mass. 2005)
9
Stamps v. Encore Receivable Mgmt., Inc., 232 F.R.D. 419 (N.D. Ga. 2005)
10
Fast v. Mayer, 692 N.W.2d 138 (N.D. 2005)

Yancey v. GMC, 2006 WL 2045894 (N.D. Ohio June 26, 2006)

Key Insight: Court ordered GM to produce “Kentucky Firefighter” and “Dancing Granny” emails if said emails can currently be found on GM’s email system, but GM would not be required to retrieve the emails from outside sources if they were not in GM’s possession; court further ordered that GM produce at its own expense the hard drives of various GM employees requested by plaintiff

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email and hard drives

Jordan v. Dillards, Inc., 2006 WL 2873472 (D. Kan. Oct. 5, 2006)

Key Insight: Defendant’s motion to compel production of plaintiff’s hard drive for inspection denied, since defendant “provided no justification for so broad or invasive a request” and there was no showing that the request was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s hard drive

Flexsys Ams. LP v. Kumho Tire U.S.A., Inc., 2006 WL 3526794 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 6, 2006)

Key Insight: In case where parties disputed whether arbitration agreement applied to plaintiff and motion on the issue was pending, court allowed limited discovery and ordered defendant to choose up to 10 individuals whose files (electronic or otherwise) would be searched for information falling within certain categories

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Jinks-Umstead v. England, 232 F.R.D. 142 (D.D.C. 2005)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to reject defendant’s attorney-client privilege and work product claims, finding that crime/fraud exception did not apply, that defendant had not waived privilege, and that plaintiff had not demonstrated a substantial need for the material; court also noted that defendant had previously been sanctioned for the discovery conduct complained of and that it would be inappropriate to sanction defendant again for the very same conduct

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Drafts of discovery responses and email claimed to be privileged

McDougal-Wilson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 232 F.R.D. 246 (E.D.N.C. 2005)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to produce (among other things) computer generated employee profiles of all its employees in North Carolina from 1995 to the present, finding that producing records of over 1,000 employees who were not similarly situated to plaintiff would be unduly burdensome and oppressive and was unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Computer generated employee profiles

Papyrus Tech. Corp. v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 2005 WL 1606059 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2005)

Key Insight: Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of additional computer files denied where plaintiff offered no basis either for excusing delay or for deeming the files in question to be so significant as to justify reopening discovery more than five months after its close

Electronic Data Involved: Computer files

Williams v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 226 F.R.D. 144 (D. Mass. 2005)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s request for forensic search of former employer’s information systems where plaintiff offered no credible evidence that defendants were unwilling to produce computer-generated documents or that defendants had withheld relevant information

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, race discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Stamps v. Encore Receivable Mgmt., Inc., 232 F.R.D. 419 (N.D. Ga. 2005)

Key Insight: Plaintiff was not entitled to protective order delaying, until after key depositions were taken, production of tape recording of message left by defendant’s representative on plaintiff’s home answering machine, since tape constituted substantive evidence and was not mere impeachment evidence, and issues of fairness weighed in favor of production

Nature of Case: Debtor alleged violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Tape recording of message left on answering machine

Fast v. Mayer, 692 N.W.2d 138 (N.D. 2005)

Key Insight: No abuse of discretion to deny mother’s request to conduct forensic examination of father’s computer; although mother alleged that computer contained pornography, there was no evidence the child had seen it and it would be impossible to definitively attribute the pornography to father, since other adults used the computer and certain components were salvaged from other computers

Nature of Case: Mother sought to require supervision of child’s visits with father

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive

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