Motion to Compel – Page 87 – Electronic Discovery Law

Rohm and Hass, Co. v. Dow Chem., Co., 2009 WL 537195 (Del. Ch. Feb. 26, 2009) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Chancellor denied motion to compel production of Litigation Support Model program designed to assist defendant in settlement analysis where program was prepared in anticipation of litigation and where plaintiff failed to establish necessary showing of substantial need or the inability to obtain the substantial equivalent elsewhere; recognizing sensitive nature of Enterprise Model program used for corporate decision making and strategy, court denied defendants motion for a protective order but ordered plaintiffs to limit disclosure of that material to essential persons and ordered experts to certify their understanding of the limitations of the information?s use and their obligation of confidentiality prior to viewing the information

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Dynamic program models

Earp v. Peters, 2009 WL 1444707 (W.D.N.C. May 21, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel copy of copyrighted software used by defendant?s expert to create an illustrative animated exhibit where defendants produced all underlying data and a copy of the final exhibit to plaintiff and provided their experts for multiple depositions and where defendants argued they could not be compelled to produce a copyrighted software ?simply to spare Plaintiff the expense of acquiring the software or the services of an animator?

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Copyrighted software used to create illustrative animation

Boyer v. Gildea, 2009 WL 230646 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 29, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding emails between trustee?s former and current counsel and an email between current counsel and a fact witness subject to protection from disclosure under the work production doctrine and noting defendant?s failure to assert substantial need or inability to obtain equivalent materials by other means, court denied defendant?s motion to compel production of the emails at issue

Nature of Case: Adversary proceeding alleging statutory violations by entering into agreement to control price of auction assets

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

State Farm Ins. Co. v. Policherla, 2009 WL 2170183 (E.D. Mich. July 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied defendants? motion to quash third party subpoena upon finding defendants? could claim no viable privacy interest and thus lacked standing and where plaintiff?s showing of relevance outweighed defendants? claims of harm; court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel claim related information, despite acknowledgement of defendants? burden, where plaintiff established the relevance of such data, but ordered a sampling of the requested data while reserving plaintiff?s prerogative to make a showing that additional disclosure would be productive

Nature of Case: RICO

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Zenith Elecs., Inc. v. Vizio, Inc., 2009 WL 3094889 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of documents by non-party pursuant to subpoena where court determined non-party did not have control of the documents requested because such documents were maintained by foreign parent company and non-party did not have access to them in the ordinary course of business

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, source code

Benedict College v. Nat?l Credit Systs., 2009 WL 3839473 (D.S.C. Nov. 16, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Rejecting defendant?s claims that discovery was produced as maintained in the usual course of business where documents were printed, copied, bates labeled and then converted to .pdf format and defendant?s objections that plaintiff?s requests were overly broad and burdensome, court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel and ordered defendant to produce all responsive documents, organized and labeled according to each request, and to produce to plaintiff and the court a ?faithful electronic copy? of its relevant database with metadata intact to allow for inspection if the need arose; doubting the sufficiency of defendant?s production of email, court ordered company?s president to order a diligent search for responsive documents and to certify by affidavit (using language provided by the court) that such a search was conducted and to provide an explanation for any missing or unfound documents

Nature of Case: Beach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

Said Zaid v. Obama, 616 F.Supp.2d 119 (D.D.C. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where respondents argued that the exculpatory information sought was not ?reasonably available? under the relevant section of the case management order because several separate searches would be required in order to access all relevant databases, court stated that respondents appeared to misinterpret the relevant section to require production of ?easily available? information rather than ?reasonably available? information and granted petitioner?s motion to enforce the case management order and to allow searching of the relevant databases pursuant thereto

Electronic Data Involved: Database information accessed through Intellink search tool

Viacom Int?l, Inc. v. YouTube Inc., 2009 WL 102808 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted defendants? motion to compel production of third party?s materials related to plaintiffs despite objections where documents sought were relevant and where the alleged burden was insufficient in light of probable reimbursement to third party by plaintiffs, plaintiffs? performance of the necessary privilege review, and third party?s prior success in reducing the volume of responsive documents; where defendants sought third party material unrelated to plaintiffs, court ordered defendants and third party to meet and confer regarding scope of production and ordered defendants to bear the cost; court also ordered meet and confer regarding format of production, including specific consideration of granting defendants access to Kroll database where documents were stored

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

D.M. v. J.E.M., 873 N.Y.S. 2d 447 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding ?no demonstration of legal prejudice, or that it is unreasonable or burdensome to respondent to be required to execute such an authorization? and ?[i]n aid of the policy of compelling the production of evidence at trial,? court granted petitioner?s motion for order requiring respondent to sign authorization required by Yahoo! to release information related to respondent?s email account; finding the authorization too broad, court dictated revised language to be incorporated prior to signing

Nature of Case: Family offense proceeding alleging father sent mother vulgar messages and made false allegations of child abuse

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Gracebrothers, Ltd. v. Siena Holdings, Inc., 2009 WL 1547821 (Del. Ch. June 2, 2009) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where, in response to a request for its board of directors? emails, defendants did not ask directors to search their emails but rather determined through a series of questions that no unique emails existed and argued that the emails were already produced when they produced the ?sender-side versions,? court found that the added production would not be overly burdensome or expensive and ordered the production of any emails reasonably related to the relevant request

Nature of Case: Complaint challenging a reverse stock split in violation of Deleware law

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Tag:Motion to Compel