Tag:Motion to Compel

1
State Farm Ins. Co. v. Policherla, 2009 WL 2170183 (E.D. Mich. July 20, 2009)
2
Zenith Elecs., Inc. v. Vizio, Inc., 2009 WL 3094889 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2009)
3
Benedict College v. Nat?l Credit Systs., 2009 WL 3839473 (D.S.C. Nov. 16, 2009)
4
Said Zaid v. Obama, 616 F.Supp.2d 119 (D.D.C. 2009)
5
Viacom Int?l, Inc. v. YouTube Inc., 2009 WL 102808 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009)
6
D.M. v. J.E.M., 873 N.Y.S. 2d 447 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2009)
7
Gracebrothers, Ltd. v. Siena Holdings, Inc., 2009 WL 1547821 (Del. Ch. June 2, 2009) (Unpublished)
8
Ripley v. D.C., 2009 WL 1905070 (D.D.C. July 2, 2009)
9
Ford Motor Co. v. U.S., 2009 WL 2176657 (E.D. Mich. July 21, 2009)
10
Plan Pros Inc. v. Torczon, 2009 WL 3063017 (Sept. 18, 2009)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Ripley v. D.C., 2009 WL 1905070 (D.D.C. July 2, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendants repeatedly represented they had searched for and produced all relevant and available emails and also represented that some documents had been deleted ?per agency practice? before notice of litigation, but where defendants later found backup tapes containing thousands of responsive emails following plaintiff?s filing of a motion for sanctions, court rejected the applicability of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) noting that ?defendants were unable to provide electronically stored information only because they had not searched all of the available files.?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Ford Motor Co. v. U.S., 2009 WL 2176657 (E.D. Mich. July 21, 2009)

Key Insight: Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff?s motion to compel the government to produce documents in nine categories, including compelling the government to provide declarations outlining its search methodology and efforts and finding that the government need not attempt to recover emails that had been overwritten because of undue burden and costs, among other things; court rejected government argument that it had not produced a privilege loge because ?producing such a log would defeat [its] unduly burdensome objections? and ordered an ?adequately detailed privilege log for the responsive documents that it withholds from production?

Nature of Case: Action to recover interest accrued on overpayments of corporate income tax

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Plan Pros Inc. v. Torczon, 2009 WL 3063017 (Sept. 18, 2009)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel re-production of financial information in its original Quickbooks format where the information was previously produced following conversion to .xls format which resulted in the loss of metadata and where defendants failed to argue that production in the original format (the form or forms in which it was ordinarily maintained) was not possible

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Financial ESI

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