Tag:Motion to Compel

1
Hibbett Patient Care, LLC v. Pharmacists Mut. Ins. Co., No. CA 16-00231-WS-C (S.D. Ala. Jan. 26, 2017).
2
Solo v United Parcel Serv., Co., No. 14-12719, 2017 WL 85832 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 10, 2017)
3
Ortega v. Management and Training Corp. (D. N.M., 2017)
4
Perez v. KDE Equine, LLC, No. 3:15-cv-00562 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 4, 2017).
5
Singh et al. v. Hancock Natural Resources Group, Inc. et al. (E.D. Cal., 2016)
6
Scott v. United States Postal Services, No. 15-712-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La. Dec. 27, 2016).
7
In re Disposable Contact Lens AntiTrust Litig., No. 3:15-md-2626-J-20JRK, 2016 WL 6518660 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2016)
8
Verint Sys. Inc. v. Red Box Recorders Ltd., 14-cv-5403, 2016 WL 1644373 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2016)
9
Scott v. United States Postal Serv., No. 15-712-BAJ-EWD, 2016 WL 7440468 (M.D. La. Dec. 27, 2016)
10
Procom Heating, Inc. v. GHP Group, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00163-GNS, 2016 WL 8203221 (W.D. Ky. July 8, 2016)

Hibbett Patient Care, LLC v. Pharmacists Mut. Ins. Co., No. CA 16-00231-WS-C (S.D. Ala. Jan. 26, 2017).

Key Insight: Plaintiff requested information related to outside counsel’s evaluation of claims. Court granted, but limited original request.

Nature of Case: Insurance breach of contract and bad faith

Electronic Data Involved: Various documents related to claims investigations; primarily related to outside counsel evaluations.

Keywords: scope; outside counsel; evaluation of claim

View Case Opinion

Solo v United Parcel Serv., Co., No. 14-12719, 2017 WL 85832 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 10, 2017)

Key Insight: proportionality

Nature of Case: class action

Electronic Data Involved: backup tapes

Keywords: undue burden, statistical sampling, restoration, reasonably accessible, cooperation, interrogatory, relevance

View Case Opinion

Ortega v. Management and Training Corp. (D. N.M., 2017)

Key Insight: Can documents be compelled to be produced in multiple formats, or in a certain specified format?

Nature of Case: Employment

Electronic Data Involved: Business documents, personnel files

Keywords: Multiple formats, native format

View Case Opinion

Perez v. KDE Equine, LLC, No. 3:15-cv-00562 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 4, 2017).

Key Insight: Interrogatories asking for evidence proving or disproving engagement in interstate commerce are improper due to requesting conclusions of law.

Nature of Case: fair labor standards act violations

Keywords: interstate commerce

View Case Opinion

Scott v. United States Postal Services, No. 15-712-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La. Dec. 27, 2016).

Key Insight: Defendants request for social media posts was too broad and needed to be even more specifically directed to claims in case.

Nature of Case: personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Social Media Posts

Keywords: social media; scope

View Case Opinion

In re Disposable Contact Lens AntiTrust Litig., No. 3:15-md-2626-J-20JRK, 2016 WL 6518660 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2016)

Key Insight: Where the ?potential relevance? of the information sought was ?essentially undisputed,? but where Defendant claimed to have already spent $700,000 on discovery and that the request for 18 additional custodians could result in an expenditure of at least $1.5 million, court noted that the parties? dispute was essentially a question of proportionality and concluded a that two additional ?upper-management custodians? were warranted (as opposed to the seven requested) and also found that a sample of four sales manages was appropriate (as opposed to the eleven requested); as to Class Plaintiffs? request for a ?hit list? generated by applying the agreed-upon search terms to the collected materials, the court reasoned that in light of the number of custodians and the parties? agreement as to search terms, such a list seemed ?less valuable that it might otherwise be,? but ordered that if one was automatically generated, it should be produced

Nature of Case: Class Action

Electronic Data Involved: Additional Custodians

Verint Sys. Inc. v. Red Box Recorders Ltd., 14-cv-5403, 2016 WL 1644373 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2016)

Key Insight: Court affirmed order of Magistrate Judge declining request for additional discovery based on Defendant?s alleged violation of the parties? protocol for discovery. Where parties agreed that each would disclose the eight custodians ?most likely? to have discoverable ESI, Plaintiff claimed that Defendant failed to name its VP of North American sales in a ?systematic and pervasive effort? to prevent the disclosure of discoverable documents. Magistrate Judge reasoned that Plaintiff needed to explain why its proposed custodians were better than those identified by Defendant and permitted Plaintiff to conduct a test search at its expense, which uncovered few additional documents. Magistrate Judge held that absent a showing that Defendant violated the protocol, it should be enforced, noting that ?for good or ill? Plaintiff had agreed to limit the searches. Affirming the order, the District Court noted that the protocol required the identification of custodians ?most likely? to have discoverable information (describing the ?before-the-fact perspective?) and not the custodians that IN FACT had the most discoverable ESI and also that Plaintiff had failed to take up the Magistrate Judge?s invitation to provide additional search terms for the test, which may have identified additional information to bolster their position

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from 8 custodians “most likely” to have responsive information

Scott v. United States Postal Serv., No. 15-712-BAJ-EWD, 2016 WL 7440468 (M.D. La. Dec. 27, 2016)

Key Insight: Court compelled production of limited social media contents after narrowing the requests to a more appropriate scope

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Social media/social network contents

Procom Heating, Inc. v. GHP Group, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00163-GNS, 2016 WL 8203221 (W.D. Ky. July 8, 2016)

Key Insight: Where Defendant formulated search terms and identified custodians unilaterally before undertaking its search and where plaintiff suspected the results were insufficient based on both the low volume of information produced and the failure to produce certain expected information (based on third parties? productions), the court considered Defendant?s multiple proposals for addressing the issue and determined that starting again, from scratch, was most appropriate; addressing whether the cost was disproportionate, court declined to characterize the costs as ?additional expense,? reasoning that Defendant ?should have resolved these issues before undertaking its unilateral search?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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