Tag:Motion to Compel

1
Promega Corp. v. Applera Corp., 2002 WL 32340886 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 27, 2002)
2
United States v. Keystone Sanitation Co., 885 F. Supp. 672 (M.D. Pa. 1994)
3
Concerned Citizens of Belle Haven v. Belle Haven Club, 223 F.R.D. 39 (D. Conn. 2004)
4
Georgia Emission Testing Co. v. Reheis, 602 S.E.2d 153 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)
5
Lipco Elec. Corp. v. ASG Consulting Corp., 2004 WL 1949062 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 18, 2004) (Unpublished)
6
Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Tech. AG, 222 F.R.D. 280 (E.D. Va. 2004)
7
United States v. Visa USA, Inc., 1999 WL 476437 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 7, 1999)
8
In the Matter of Certain Network Interface Cards, 2001 WL 1217233 (U.S.I.T.C. Oct. 12, 2001)
9
Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp., 223 F.R.D. 162 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)
10
Giardina v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2003 WL 1338826 (E.D. La. Mar. 14, 2003)

Promega Corp. v. Applera Corp., 2002 WL 32340886 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 27, 2002)

Key Insight: After plaintiffs objected to production of sales database because it was not organized to its liking, and defendants produced two further iterations in an attempt to respond to plaintiffs’ complaints, court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel production of “complete and accurate” database since court “was not convinced that defendants have failed to produce this information, even if it is not in the ideal format plaintiff desires”

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Sales database

United States v. Keystone Sanitation Co., 885 F. Supp. 672 (M.D. Pa. 1994)

Key Insight: Inadvertent disclosure of defense attorney’s emails regarding defendants’ disposition of assets in context of massive production constituted subject matter waiver of attorney-client privilege because precautions taken to avoid such disclosure were not reasonable, defendants ordered to produce unredacted attorney billing memoranda relating to issue

Nature of Case: Environmental litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Concerned Citizens of Belle Haven v. Belle Haven Club, 223 F.R.D. 39 (D. Conn. 2004)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendants to respond to interrogatories and requests for admissions relating to database compiled by plaintiffs that contained factual information as property address, owners, purchase dates, dates of club membership, and religious affiliation

Nature of Case: Property owners sued yacht club alleging discriminatory practices

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Georgia Emission Testing Co. v. Reheis, 602 S.E.2d 153 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)

Key Insight: Trial court abused its discretion in ordering parties to share costs of requested discovery equally, and should have ordered the requesting party to bear full cost where requested information should have been available in the requesting party?s own records, and the request involved the creation of a report that otherwise did not exist, and had to be specially created by a nonparty contractor at significant cost

Nature of Case: Suit to recover fees improperly assessed pursuant to Motor Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance Act

Electronic Data Involved: Special report extracted from massive database of information

Lipco Elec. Corp. v. ASG Consulting Corp., 2004 WL 1949062 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 18, 2004) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Noting differences between federal law and New York law regarding cost-shifting in discovery, court stated it did not have sufficient information about the costs associated with the requested discovery, but concluded that until plaintiffs indicated a willingness to pay for the requested electronic discovery (whatever its cost), court would not order its production

Nature of Case: Claims based on breach of contract and for an accounting

Electronic Data Involved: Computer data

Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Tech. AG, 222 F.R.D. 280 (E.D. Va. 2004)

Key Insight: Based on in camera review, court granted defendant’s motion to compel based on the crime/fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege, ordered production of other documents on same subject matter and further ruled that discovery would be allowed regarding documents produced and on the issue of sanctions

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email, backup tapes

United States v. Visa USA, Inc., 1999 WL 476437 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 7, 1999)

Key Insight: Parties agreed to narrow the scope of archived email search, both in terms of the number of employees whose email was to be produced and the number of days per month for which that email was to be produced; defendants to bear cost of production ($130,000) initially, but court reserved decision about who ultimately would bear cost; court denied plaintiff’s request that defendant make its production available on CD-ROM

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Archived email

In the Matter of Certain Network Interface Cards, 2001 WL 1217233 (U.S.I.T.C. Oct. 12, 2001)

Key Insight: Where there were gaps in plaintiff’s production of email, administrative law judge granted motion to compel production of email from plaintiff’s backup tapes but ordered parties to share the costs of such production

Nature of Case: Case before the U.S. International Trade Commission

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp., 223 F.R.D. 162 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)

Key Insight: Court rejected plaintiff’s request for direct access to Compaq’s hard drives, servers, and databases since plaintiff had failed to show widespread destruction or withholding of relevant information by Compaq; court further rejected plaintiff’s request for sanctions for failure to preserve certain evidence

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, servers, databases, email and electronic data

Giardina v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2003 WL 1338826 (E.D. La. Mar. 14, 2003)

Key Insight: Magistrate’s order granting plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery and awarding attorneys’ fees upheld; employer required to provide available data and also respond by stating the steps taken to obtain non-work related internet sites accessed during the dates requested, including detailed explanation of efforts to obtain information and reasons its efforts were not successful if it was unable to obtain the data to fully respond to interrogatory

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Information re all non-work related internet sites accessed on certain of employer’s computers during relevant period

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