Third Party Discovery – Page 12 – Electronic Discovery Law

United States v. AT&T, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-01560, 2011 WL 5347178 (D.D.C. Nov. 6, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied non-party?s motion to quash defendant?s subpoena where defendant adequately narrowed its request and where the non-party failed to establish that the burden of responding was undue, including by failing to provide particulars related to the expected burden of responding; court?s analysis closely followed standard set forth in Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii)

Nature of Case: DOJ investigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Mgmt. Compensation Group Lee, Inc. v. Oklahoma State Univ., No. CIV-11-967-D, 2011 WL 5326262 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 3, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where non-party OSU represented that responding to a subpoena seeking 6571 documents would require an expenditure of $1,761.24 and 55 hours of in-house counsel?s time, court found the burden was not so undue as to require protection from compliance and, in so finding, noted OSU?s financial interest in the outcome of the litigation, OSU?s close ties to a party in the case, and the amount in controversy of the underlying litigation (many millions of dollars)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Google Litig., No. C 08-03172 RMW (PSG), 2011 WL 6113000 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where third party objected to plaintiff?s subpoena as overly broad and burdensome but nevertheless undertook a limited search which resulted in the identification of zero documents, but where plaintiff argued the search was halfhearted and that additional searching was required, the court took notice of objective of the recently adopted Model Order on E-Discovery in Patent Cases and indicated its applicability to third parties and thereafter ordered plaintiff to provide the non-party with five search terms to be utilized in additional searching and that plaintiff would bear the costs of any terms beyond the limits agreed to by the parties or granted by the court

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Bower v. Bower, No. 10-10405-NG, 2011 WL 3702086 (D. Mass. Apr. 5, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel Yahoo! and Google to produce emails in violation of Stored Communications Act and declined to rely upon defendant?s ?status as a fugitive? to find that she was deemed to have given consent or to issue an order requiring consent which, if defied, would allow the implication that consent had been given where the court reasoned that ?there is nothing in [defendant?s] actions from which this court can imply an intent to consent to the disclosure of her information

Nature of Case: Child abduction

Electronic Data Involved: Web-based email

Veolia Transp. Servs. v. Evanson, No. CV-10-01392-PHX-NVW, 2011 WL 5909917 (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where, prior to being named a party to the action, defendant failed to preserve ESI (including failing to pay a vendor for imaging her hard drive, which resulted in the vendor’s destruction of the image) despite the receipt of two subpoenas, where the court found the spoliation to be at least willful, and where the circumstances surrounding the spoliation permitted an inference that the information destroyed was highly relevant to the litigation, court found an entry of default was appropriate and set a hearing to determine the appropriate damages

Nature of Case: Tortious interference with a contract, breach of contract, defamation, etc. arising from anonymous emails sent to several parties

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drive

In re Lazaridis, 865 F. Supp. 2d 521 (D.N.J. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted motion to quash subpoena issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ? 1782 upon finding the subpoena was unduly burdensome because of the time and/or cost that would be required to retrieve the information requested from the non-profit organization?s server, particularly in light of the availability of the information from the organization?s publically available website, and where the request implicated the First Amendment rights of the organization?s members who were subject to a privacy policy that assured them that their private information would be protected

Nature of Case: Foreign prosecution involving claims of libel and slander

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, messages from online forum(s)(stored in Structured Query Language)

United States v. Univ. Health Servs., Inc., No. 1:07cv000054, 2011 WL 2559552 (W.D. Va. June 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions for defendant?s failure to preserve video surveillance tape where the parties initially agreed that the tapes for the thirty days preceding the subpoena need not be saved, thus creating the understanding that tape recycling could proceed as usual, and where, as a result of this agreement, defendants could not be said to have failed to preserve in bad faith; court also declined to infer spoliation absent evidence that additional, relevant ESI existed that had not been produced

Nature of Case: Violation of False Claims Act and The VA Fraud Against Taxpayers Act

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape

Xyience, Inc. v. Zyen, LLC (In re Xyience), Ch. 11 Case No. BK-S-08-10474-MKN, Adv. No. 09-1402-MKN, 2011 WL 5239666 (Bankr. D. Nev. Oct. 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: For ?discovery misconduct? including failing to issue a litigation hold; admitted deletion of documents; and failure to promptly search certain repositories for responsive information, including a computer utilized by an individual defendant at an unrelated corporation for which he was an officer (but which he used for matters unrelated to that corporation, including for correspondence related to the underlying lawsuits) and the computer of the same individual?s secretary (albeit at yet a third company which was also a defendant), the court ordered monetary sanctions ?to reimburse Plaintiff?s expenses costs, and reasonable attorney?s fees?

Nature of Case: Bankruptcy

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

DFSB Kollective Co., Ltd. v. Jenpoo, No. 11-1050 SC, 2011 WL 2314161 (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted in part motion to conduct expedited discovery for the purpose of identifying alleged copyright infringer(s) and specified the Internet Service Providers to whom subpoenas may be served but declined to allow discovery from entities not sufficiently connected to the allegations or to allow discovery of information related to email addresses not related to the allegations

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information from Internet Service Providers

Pink Lotus Entm?t, LLC v. Does 1-46, No. C-11-002263 HRI, 2011 WL 2470986 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: After consideration of the four relevant factors to determine whether there is good cause to allow expedited discovery and upon a determination that plaintiff had met its burden, court granted motion to allow expedited discovery for the limited purpose of obtaining indentifying information from alleged infringers? ISPs

Nature of Case: Copyright Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information from internet service providers

Tag:Third Party Discovery