Key Insight: Upon plaintiff?s showing of good cause, court granted motion for expedited discovery to issue a subpoena to the relevant ISP seeking identifying information regarding one unknown defendant (Doe 1) but denied the motion as to the remaining 100 Does because of improper joinder
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information for ISP subscriber
Key Insight: Court granted motion for expedited discovery to issue subpoenas to relevant ISPs seeking information sufficient to identify Doe defendants
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information from ISP
Key Insight: Court held plaintiff?s and third party?s claims of privilege as to redacted and withheld portions of presentations waived where plaintiff and third party failed to meet their burden of establishing the claim of privilege by failing to establish that all persons to whom the presentation was disseminated or shown were ?individuals who needed to know the information contained in the presentation? as would be required to maintain the privilege
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Presentations
Key Insight: Court quashed subpoena served upon Yahoo! for the production of emails from defendant?s account where the Stored Communications Act generally prohibits such disclosure absent a specifically-enumerated exception and where subpoena in a civil action is not such an exception
Nature of Case: Claims arising from prisoner’s death
Electronic Data Involved: Emails from defendant’s Yahoo! account
Key Insight: Court quashed non-party subpoena upon finding it unduly burdensome where non-party estimated the cost of compliance in excess of $1,000,000 and argued that the information sought was irrelevant and cumulative of information available to the plaintiff from an alternative source
Electronic Data Involved: Stochastic modeling reports
Key Insight: Where defendant subpoenaed third parties seeking production of communications between defendant and those third parties from years prior, and where defendant could not produce those communications itself, court found the information relevant and denied third parties? motion to quash but, noting that defendant?s insufficient document retention policies resulted in the need to subpoena the information, court ordered defendant to bear the costs of production
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI
Key Insight: Court granted motion for expedited discovery to discover the identity of the alleged copyright infringers for the purposes of commencing litigation and for seeking a preliminary injunction noting that courts have ?routinely? allowed such discovery and that the information sought was ?transitory in nature? and necessary to initiate the action
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Does’ identities
Key Insight: Where third-party (and former defendant) signed stipulation to preserve and produce ESI as if still a party to the litigation and later sought reimbursement for the review and production of data in a particular database, court ordered a database be created comprised of the four custodians at issue, that plaintiff pay $4085 to the vendor as a ?start-up fee? (pursuant to their agreement to do so), and that plaintiff and third-party split the remaining costs of creating the database, but ordered third-party to bear the costs of its own review prior to production
Nature of Case: Antitrist litigation
Electronic Data Involved: Database
Key Insight: Clarifying the nature of its order regarding costs, court stated that its prior order requiring plaintiff to deposit funds into the court registry sufficient to cover the third party?s anticipated costs of producing ESI specifically excluded attorney?s fees but did not preclude recovery of them, and ordered compliance with its prior order
Nature of Case: Fraud and negligence claims
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion to conduct discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference where plaintiff sought to subpoena her own cell phone provider to obtain electronic data that was in danger of being purged pursuant to Verizon?s data retention policies and where the request was reasonable in light of the limited scope of the subpoena and the danger of irreparable harm to plaintiff if the data was lost
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic data in possession of cellular phone service provider
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.