Third Party Discovery – Page 15 – Electronic Discovery Law

Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 2010 WL 1135781 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Addressing several objections to the magistrate?s order compelling production of data from non-parties, court held that despite ?minimal? showing of relevance, magistrate did not err in ordering production of data where magistrate weighed the relevance of the data against the burden alleged and ordered appropriate steps to reduce the burden, including limiting the review of documents to those hit by a small set of search terms, waiving respondents? obligations to produce a privilege log, and allowing one respondent to search only its central server rather than 75 individual hard drives following that respondents? showing of undue burden; court rejected petitioner?s objections to the measures taken to reduce the non-parties? burdens

Nature of Case: Litigation surround California’s Proposition 8

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Achte/Neunte Boll Kino Beteiligungs GMBH & Co. v. Does 1-4577, 736 F. Supp. 2d 212 (D.D.C. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Noting that “courts have held that Internet subscribers do not have an expectation of privacy in their subscriber information as they already have conveyed such information to their Internet Service Providers,” court denied motion to quash subpoena seeking identifying information from relevant ISPs

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Names and contact information for ISP subscribers

Veolia Transp. Servs., Inc. v. Does I-VII, 2010 WL 5151323 (D. Ariz. Dec. 13, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted motion to conduct pre-service discovery for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of the Doe defendants and, upon the parties agreement, ordered that a third-party expert conduct the discovery

Electronic Data Involved: Identity of Doe defendants

Zynga Game Net. v. Williams, 2010 WL 2077191 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted motion for leave to serve subpoenas on third parties (GoDaddy, Microsoft Office Live, and PayPal) for purposes of obtaining information sufficient to identify and locate suspected copyright infringers but ordered plaintiff to narrow the scope of the subpoenas for the limited purpose of identification

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Information sufficient to identify suspected defendants

People v. Spykstra, 234 P.3d 662 (Colo. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Reversing the order of the trial court, the Supreme Court established 5 part test to challenge the issuance of a pretrial subpoena and quashed the subpoenas issued by defendant where, by ordering the relevant individuals to submit their computers to inspection by defendant?s expert, the trial court ?improperly converted the subpoenas into the functional equivalent of search warrants? and where defendant failed to establish any factual basis demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that the emails sought existed or that they contained material evidence

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, Contents of hard drives

Govan Brown & Assoc., Ltd. v. Does 1&2, 2010 WL 3076295 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ? 1782, court granted in part plaintiff?s application to conduct discovery in a foreign proceeding and ordered that plaintiff may serve upon Google, Inc. a subpoena seeking the IP address associated with an account from which an allegedly defamatory email was sent, but denied the application to the extent it sought to serve a subpoena for information related to an email sent from a separate account that merely read, ?Have a nice day? and which could not form the basis for a cause of action under the laws of Canda; to the extent the IP addresses for the two email accounts was the same, however, Google would be allowed to disclosure that information

CE Design Ltd. v. Cy?s Crabhouse N., Inc., 2010 WL 2365162 (N.D. Ill. June 11, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant alleged plaintiff had violated the protective order by using information contained on a hard drive and backup tapes provided by a third party to initiate additional lawsuits, court denied defendant?s motion to dismiss absent evidence of prejudice but granted third party?s motion for protective order preventing such use going forward; for plaintiff?s failure to supplement discovery, court denied motion for dismissal but gave permission for defendant?s expert to supplement report based on newly-obtained information

Nature of Case: Violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI contained on hard drive, backup tapes

Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Felman Prod. Inc., 2010 WL 3294389 (S.D. W. Va. Aug. 19, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants sought production from 10 foreign custodians alleged to be agents of the plaintiff, the court conducted an extensive review of evidence as to each persons? involvement with the plaintiff and the applicable case law from several jurisdictions and found as to 9 of the custodians that they maintained relevant information and that plaintiff exercised sufficient control of that information, in light of the custodian?s significant involvement with plaintiff?s business, that the information should be produced; in so holding, the court rejected plaintiff?s arguments that the discovery sought had already been produced, was not under their control, was cumulative and duplicative, and was unduly costly and burdensome to produce

Nature of Case: Claims arising from failure of tranformer for silicomanganese furnace

Electronic Data Involved: ESI in custody of foreign custodians

LG Elecs., Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 10 CV 3179, 2010 WL 3075755 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 5, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel non-party to produce email communications which were in the possession of a party to the action but not subject to production because of party agreement: ?This court will not require Motorola to produce e-mail communications that Vizio and LG purposefully decided not to seek in the underlying lawsuit.?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

CE Design Ltd. v. Cy?s Crabhouse North, Inc., 2010 WL 3327876 (N.D. Ill Aug. 23, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court vacated prior order designating contents of relevant hard drive confidential where good cause was not established by the proffered reasons for the designation; addressing defendant?s motion to disqualify plaintiff?s counsel and bar its expert for failure to timely supplement discovery by producing a relevant hard drive, the court ruled that defendant failed to offer new information that would justify such a sanction (because this issue was previously considered) where the newly-discovered documents (on the late-produced hard drive) did not change the court?s analysis as to numerosity and certification of the class and where the expert was given the opportunity to supplement his report

Nature of Case: Violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Tag:Third Party Discovery