Tag:Motion to Compel

1
Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-14, 2008 WL 5350246 (W.D. Va. Dec. 22, 2008)
2
Simon Property Group, Inc. v. Taubman Centers, Inc., 2008 WL 205250 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 24, 2008)
3
Peacock v. Merrill, 2008 WL 509636 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 22, 2008)
4
Miyano Mach. USA, Inc. v. Miyanohitec Mach., Inc., 2008 WL 2364610 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2008)
5
Dean v. New Werner Holding Co., Inc., 2008 WL 2560707 (D. Kan. June 26, 2008)
6
Willeford v. Toys ?R? US-Del., Inc., 895 N.E.2d 83 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)
7
Mintel Int?l Group, Ltd. v. Neerghen, 2008 WL 4936745 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2008)
8
MSC Software Corp. v. Altair Eng?g, Inc., 2008 WL 5381864 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 22, 2008)
9
Ex parte Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 990 So.2d 355 (2008)
10
Executive Air Taxi Corp. v. City of Bismarck, 2008 WL 564725 (8th Cir. Mar. 4, 2008)

Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-14, 2008 WL 5350246 (W.D. Va. Dec. 22, 2008)

Key Insight: Where a university responded to a subpoena seeking ?all documents and electronically-stored information relating to the assignment of the IP addresses? of unidentified, suspected copyright infringers by producing file logs identifying the dorm rooms associated with the IP addresses at issue and the MAC addresses of the devices used to access the internet, but where it could not provide the names to which the addresses were assigned because the rooms were shared, court denied motion to compel based on specific language of subpoena but permitted service of a third subpoena specifically seeking names of the residents of each room at issue

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Names of ISP subscribers

Simon Property Group, Inc. v. Taubman Centers, Inc., 2008 WL 205250 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 24, 2008)

Key Insight: Where nonparty demonstrated that a search for ESI using terms provided by party returned over 250,000 files and that it would take three employees working full time for four weeks to review files for responsiveness, and party offered to narrow scope by altering time periods, search terms, and servers, court ordered enforcement of subpoena with provision that both parties work in good faith to reduce its scope

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, RICO and other tort claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Miyano Mach. USA, Inc. v. Miyanohitec Mach., Inc., 2008 WL 2364610 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2008)

Key Insight: Court applied balancing test and found that plaintiff?s inadvertent production of single privileged email on CD among 22,000 pages of documents did not effect waiver given expedited nature of discovery, scope of documents produced, limited extent of disclosure and lack of any demonstrable prejudice to defendants

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, cybersquatting, unfair competition, unfair trade practices

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Willeford v. Toys ?R? US-Del., Inc., 895 N.E.2d 83 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)

Key Insight: Appellate court upheld order of contempt and declined to expand protective order to keep confidential names and contact information of persons involved in falling merchandise accidents where defendant?s challenges of discovery rulings resulted in five year delay, were not in good faith, and information sought to be protected was not the sort that should be covered by a protective order

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Mintel Int?l Group, Ltd. v. Neerghen, 2008 WL 4936745 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2008)

Key Insight: Court declined to compel compliance with subpoena seeking forensic image of third-party competitor?s computer where third party asserted it had no relevant documents on its computers, where an expert?s search confirmed that assertion and where plaintiff failed to establish third party?s possession of documents sought; regarding plaintiff?s claim that defendant?s search was incomplete where it did not include titles or phrases from documents not included in the complaint, court ordered meet and confer regarding supplemental search terms and for third party to allow forensic expert to conduct search

Nature of Case: Violation of Trade Secrets Act, Computer Fraud Abuse Act and terms of employment contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drive

MSC Software Corp. v. Altair Eng?g, Inc., 2008 WL 5381864 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 22, 2008)

Key Insight: Despite their production?s compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, court ordered defendants to specifically identify documents responsive to particular requests where plaintiff could not ?easily locate the documents? responsive to those requests within the production; court ordered defendant to use search terms provided by plaintiffs, despite objections of burden and privilege, but ordered use of connector term ?and? rather than ?or? to return documents ?more responsive? to the requests; court declined to order forensic imaging of hard drive but ordered defendant?s expert to produce attorney?s eyes only report of examination of the hard drive to address specific concerns and to provide plaintiffs with a directory list for all defendant?s non-Altair computer hard drives

Nature of Case: Theft of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email, hard drives

Ex parte Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 990 So.2d 355 (2008)

Key Insight: Court denied (in part) motion for writ of mandamus to vacate trial court?s order compelling production of ?all documents regarding the relationship between Nationwide and its counsel? where Nationwide failed to show that the information was ?patently irrelevant,? as required, and where the court opined that the information was accessible through its counsel and was thus unpersuaded that production would be arduous; court granted motion (in part) and directed trial court to vacate order compelling production of all electronic communications with counsel where court found that communications occurring after denial of coverage were within period in which litigation was anticipated and were therefore privileged

Nature of Case: Breach of insurance contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI regarding relationship with counsel

Executive Air Taxi Corp. v. City of Bismarck, 2008 WL 564725 (8th Cir. Mar. 4, 2008)

Key Insight: Eighth Circuit upheld district court’s order denying plaintiff’s request to have a third-party expert conduct forensic investigation of a City-owned computer to search for relevant emails that might not have been produced in discovery; district court’s findings that City had produced all relevant emails in hard copy and that forensic discovery could expose confidential or privileged materials were not clearly erroneous and in light of that factual premise there was no abuse of discretion

Nature of Case: Equal protection and substantive due process claims

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer of defendant’s employee

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