Tag:Motion to Compel

1
Stormo v. City of Sioux Falls, No. 12-04057 (D. S.D. Feb. 19, 2016)
2
Arcelormittal Indiana Harbor, LLC v. Amex Nooter, LLC (Northern District of Indiana, 2016)
3
McSparran v. Pennsylvania (M.D. Pa, 2016)
4
Bazzi v. YP Advertising & Publishing, LLC (Eastern District of Michigan, 2016)
5
SEC v. CKB168 Holdings Inc. (E.D.N.Y., 2016)
6
In re Xarelto (Rivaroxaban) Products Liability Litigation (Eastern district of Louisiana MDL, 2016)
7
Granados v. Traffic Bar and Restaurant, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., 2015)
8
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Warren Chiropractic & Rehab Clinic, P.C., No. 4:14-CV-11521, 2015 WL 4094115 (E.D. Mich. July 7, 2015)
9
Wilson v. Conair, No. 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB, 2015 WL 1994270 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2015)
10
Shaw v. Experian Info. Sol., Inc., 2015 WL 1260552 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2015)

Arcelormittal Indiana Harbor, LLC v. Amex Nooter, LLC (Northern District of Indiana, 2016)

Key Insight: confidential settlement information in documents requested

Nature of Case: Negligence and breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: communications between Amex Nooter and IOSHA

Keywords: Confidential Settlement information, motion to compel, impeachment

View Case Opinion

Bazzi v. YP Advertising & Publishing, LLC (Eastern District of Michigan, 2016)

Key Insight: forensic imaging of USB drive of handwritten notes and reopening of deposition for questioning regarding the notes

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: handwritten notes from plantiff

Keywords: delaying tactics, reopening deposition, disclosure of evidence at deposition, relevancy

View Case Opinion

SEC v. CKB168 Holdings Inc. (E.D.N.Y., 2016)

Key Insight: are the defendants acting in bad faith by not confirming that evidence doesn’t exist or was it not preserved, in that case is it sanctionable

Nature of Case: violation of Securities act, violation of the exchange act and rule 10b-5, unregistered securities offerings

Electronic Data Involved: “back office data” information as to whether defendants explored public offering

Keywords: bad faith, sanctions, spoliation, public offering

View Case Opinion

In re Xarelto (Rivaroxaban) Products Liability Litigation (Eastern district of Louisiana MDL, 2016)

Key Insight: personnel files are not maintained by the custodian, they are maintained by HR and contain personal information and are not discoverable

Nature of Case: products liability

Electronic Data Involved: employee personnel files of people that plaintiffs want to depose

Keywords: discoverability, relevancy, personnel files

View Case Opinion

Granados v. Traffic Bar and Restaurant, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., 2015)

Key Insight: if sanctions can be granted for inconsistent and incomplete response from opposing party

Nature of Case: violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law

Electronic Data Involved: initial interrogatories and verifications

Keywords: spoliation, sanctions, default judgment, defunct business, unreachable party

View Case Opinion

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Warren Chiropractic & Rehab Clinic, P.C., No. 4:14-CV-11521, 2015 WL 4094115 (E.D. Mich. July 7, 2015)

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel and rejected objections based on burden where Defendants offered no evidence in support of the alleged claims of burden nor ?any specificity regarding the approximate cost of production?

Nature of Case: Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Wilson v. Conair, No. 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB, 2015 WL 1994270 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2015)

Key Insight: Although ?[t]he rules do not require a party to produce ESI in the form most helpful to the opposing party[,]? the court ordered Defendant to produce additional discovery in TIFF format and to produce the metadata for all documents already produced (in PDF format)

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (.xls, proprietary format)

Shaw v. Experian Info. Sol., Inc., 2015 WL 1260552 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2015)

Key Insight: Court granted Plaintiffs? motion to compel production of defendant database records. Defendant argued that the harm to third parties from disclosure of personal information contained in the requested data outweighed the relevance of the information to plaintiffs? claim, and that the preparation, review, and production presented an undue burden. Finding that the requested data was highly relevant to the class certification requirements, the court concluded plaintiffs? need significantly outweighed privacy concerns given the option of producing subject to protective order and Plaintiffs? agreement to accept data with personal information redacted. Nor was the court persuaded by defendant?s burden argument, finding the estimate and explanation from plaintiffs? database consultant ?more persuasive, appropriate, and accurate? than that provided by defendant – particularly in light of modifications Plaintiffs made to their request after defendant clarified how the data was stored in their systems. The court also noted that defendant?s briefing failed to allege any facts supporting its assertion that the information was more readily available from other sources.

Nature of Case: Class Action; Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act

Electronic Data Involved: Database

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