Motion to Compel – Page 90 – Electronic Discovery Law

Brown v. Coleman, 2009 WL 2877602 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where expert witness destroyed relevant surgical logs and resisted production of alternative evidence upon the objection that a review of all patient files would be unduly burdensome, court denied motion to compel production of the logs but ordered that as a sanction for spoliation, the expert would not be allowed to testify as to the number of fat grafting procedures he had performed, and would have to be qualified as an expert based on other information

Nature of Case: Medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Surgical records

Lawson v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 2009 WL 499014 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 26, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff denied wrongdoing resulting from its efforts to access password-protected files containing attorney-client material produced to plaintiff in discovery and relied in part on counsel?s approval of those actions, court ordered emails between plaintiff and counsel produced based on plaintiff?s reliance on those discussions and the ?need to unearth what actually transpired?; court indicated belief that intrusion into the attorney-client privilege was minimized by court?s en camera review of the emails before rendering its decision

Nature of Case: Action for unpaid commission

Flying J. Inc. v. Pilot Travel Ctrs. LLC, 2009 WL 1835000 (D. Utah June 25, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs? request for production sought both data and summaries of data, court granted plaintiffs? motion to compel production of the requested data but found defendants were not required to compile or summarize information in their response (?[A] request for production cannot require a responding party to compile and summarize.?); court rejected defendant?s argument that production of the requested data would be unreasonably burdensome without reciprocal productions from plaintiff finding ?[a] party is not excused from making disclosures because ?another party has not made it disclosures.??

Electronic Data Involved: Transaction data from defendant’s database(s)

Gamby v. First Nat?l Bank of Omaha, 2009 WL 127782 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant repeatedly violated its discovery obligations, including making misrepresentations of unavailability despite later revelations that documents were available from shared electronic source, and in light of explanations ?entirely unworthy of credence,? among other things, court struck answer of defendant and ordered judgment by default to plaintiff on issue of liability

Nature of Case: Claims arising from the Fair Credit Reporting Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Tamer, 877 N.Y.S.2d 874 (Surr. Ct. N.Y. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding electronic production sufficient to satisfy the relevant statute requiring production of documents as kept in the regular course of business or organized to correspond to the category of the request, court granted objectants motion to compel trustees to accept production in electronic form and not hard copy and ordered such production to be accompanied by an index identifying the document produced in response to each demand and the electronic file where the document was stored

Nature of Case: Contested accounting proceeding

Electronic Data Involved: Production of documents in electronic form

Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenebaum, , 2009 WL 1651338 (D.R.I. June 10, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motion to compel compliance with third party subpoena to allow access to the hard drive of the parents of defendant accused of copyright infringement in a music downloading case where parents were not parties to the action and where the computer was purchased after defendant moved out and thus plaintiffs failed to establish likelihood of the discovery of relevant information sufficient to warrant intrusion into parents? privacy

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive belonging to third party

Negotiated Data Solutions, LLC v. Dell, Inc., 2009 WL 733876 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel production of third party?s ESI where the court found the data relevant and not duplicative or obtainable through other sources and where the court found the protective order in place (and the court?s invitation to seek additional protection if necessary) provided appropriate protection of the third party?s information

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Third party’s ESI, source code

Peterson v. Bernardi, 2009 WL 2243988 (D.N.J. July 24, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought the return of allegedly inadvertently produced privileged documents, court found most documents were not actually privileged and thus not subject to return and noted that even if the documents had been privileged, plaintiff failed to establish that all elements of FRE 502 were met such that waiver did not occur; as to nine documents determined to be ?obviously work product,? and in light of the facts of the case (involving the wrongful conviction of an innocent man), the court found that ?the interests of fairness and justice? demanded their return

Nature of Case: Wrongful imprisonment

Electronic Data Involved: Inadvertently produced communications and other allegedly privileged documents (format unspecified)

Pulse Eng?g. Inc. v. Mascon, Inc., 2009 WL 3234177 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of redacted portions of emails where the emails were prepared in anticipation of litigation and where dissemination to third party with common legal interest did not constitute waiver pursuant to the Common Interest Doctrine (commonality of interested existed where third party was responsible for manufacturing and supplying the allegedly infringing filter)

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Portions of privileged emails

Carolina Materials, LLC v. Continental Cas. Co., 2009 WL 4611519 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 1, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel third party examination of plaintiff?s relevant computers and servers but, where one such server contained data belonging to entities not party to the litigation, court granted plaintiff?s motion for a protective order and prohibited defendant from creating a forensic copy of all programs and data on that server and prohibited defendant from viewing the data belonging to the non-parties; court also ordered plaintiff to provide an explanation for the disappearance or destruction of materials that were no longer available for production

Nature of Case: Insurance contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on relevant computers and servers

Tag:Motion to Compel