Tag:Motion to Compel

1
Fuller v. Instinet, Inc., 2004 WL 3699810 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2004)
2
Bovis Lend Lease, LMB, Inc. v. Seasons Contracting Corp., 2002 WL 31729693 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2002)
3
Excelligence Learning Corp. v. Oriental Trading Co., 2004 WL 2452834 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2004)
4
Kaufman v. Kinko’s, Inc., 2002 WL 32123851 (Del. Ch. Apr. 16, 2002) (Unpublished)
5
Nicholas v. Windham Int’l, Inc., 373 F.3d 537 (4th Cir. 2004)
6
S. Diagnostic Assoc. v. Bencosme, 833 So.2d 801 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
7
Zhou v. Pittsburgh State Univ., 2003 WL 1905988 (D. Kan. Feb. 5, 2003)
8
Bowles v. Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders, 2004 WL 2203831 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2004)
9
Farmers Ins. Co., Inc. v. Peterson, 81 P.3d 659 (Okl. 2003)
10
Kintera, Inc. v. Convio, Inc., 219 F.R.D. 503 (S.D. Cal. 2003)

Fuller v. Instinet, Inc., 2004 WL 3699810 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2004)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to provide affidavits of all employees with access to employment databases and hiring practices, in order to establish whether any documents or data was destroyed, since discovery had been closed for one year and there was no evidence that defendants had destroyed documents

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Hiring and employment database and records

Bovis Lend Lease, LMB, Inc. v. Seasons Contracting Corp., 2002 WL 31729693 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2002)

Key Insight: Various emails among claims handlers, supervisors, in-house counsel and outside counsel were protected from discovery by either attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or both; however, voluntary production of certain emails waived protections; inadvertent disclosure may waive protections if reasonable precautions were not taken to guard against inadvertent disclosure

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Excelligence Learning Corp. v. Oriental Trading Co., 2004 WL 2452834 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2004)

Key Insight: Court granted defendant’s motion to compel production where defendant agreed to limit scope of email request; further, court rejected defendant’s undue burden objection to plaintiff’s discovery requests where defense counsel argued that retrieval of responsive information would be time-consuming because it involved cross-referencing many databases and backup tapes, but did not submit the information in the form of a declaration

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets and related torts

Electronic Data Involved: Email; vendor information relating to 278 products

Kaufman v. Kinko’s, Inc., 2002 WL 32123851 (Del. Ch. Apr. 16, 2002) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Granting motion to compel defendant to produce email from backup tapes notwithstanding fact that restoration and retrieval costs may approach $100,000, court stated: “Upon installing a data storage system, it must be assumed that at some point in the future one may need to retrieve the information previously stored. That there may be deficiencies in the retrieval system (or inconvenience and cost associated with the actual retrieval) cannot be sufficient to defeat an otherwise good faith request to examine relevant information . . .”

Nature of Case: Valuation dispute arising as result of two merger agreements

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on monthly backup tapes

Nicholas v. Windham Int’l, Inc., 373 F.3d 537 (4th Cir. 2004)

Key Insight: No abuse of discretion to deny enforcement of subpoena directed to plaintiffs’ nonparty company where defendants had already deposed plaintiffs and conceded that the company would have no additional information, plaintiffs would be designated Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses if discovery were allowed, and plaintiffs had already produced email from their business accounts and remained under a continuing obligation to supplement their earlier productions

Nature of Case: Ancillary proceeding to enforce subpoena

Electronic Data Involved: Email

S. Diagnostic Assoc. v. Bencosme, 833 So.2d 801 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Key Insight: Appellate court granted writ and quashed trial court’s order granting party’s motion for leave to inspect non-party’s computer system; remanded with directions to trial court to craft a narrowly-tailored order that sets parameters and limitations on the inspection

Nature of Case: Insurance bad faith

Electronic Data Involved: Computer system; records of payments to physicians

Zhou v. Pittsburgh State Univ., 2003 WL 1905988 (D. Kan. Feb. 5, 2003)

Key Insight: Motion to compel production of computer-generated salary data granted; court further ordered parties to preserve all relevant evidence including all data compilations, computerized data and other electronically-recorded information

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Computerized payroll records

Bowles v. Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders, 2004 WL 2203831 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2004)

Key Insight: Court ruled that defendant effected waiver of its attorney-client and work product privileges as to all documents on the same subject matter as the privileged documents it gave to plaintiff when she was president, since defendant’s failure to take any legal action to assert its privilege or otherwise to recover the documents for more than a year did not constitute “reasonable steps to reclaim the protected material.” Parties ordered to submit further briefing on the scope of the subject matter waiver.

Nature of Case: Former president of association sued for wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

Farmers Ins. Co., Inc. v. Peterson, 81 P.3d 659 (Okl. 2003)

Key Insight: Writ of prohibition issued, vacating lower court’s order requiring defendant to search all of its electronic and hard copy claim files covering three-year period; court suggested alternate approach using statistical sampling technique, but left the particulars of such sampling to parties to litigate in lower court

Nature of Case: Insurance bad faith

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic claim files covering three-year period

Kintera, Inc. v. Convio, Inc., 219 F.R.D. 503 (S.D. Cal. 2003)

Key Insight: Emails exchanged between a narrow group of plaintiff corporate business’s non-attorney employees were protected from discovery by attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine; further, statements on plaintiff’s web site waived work product protection for affidavits described therein, but did not waive work product protection with respect to plaintiff’s recorded conversation with competitor’s former employees and email exchanges with them

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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