Tag:Third Party Discovery

1
Zynga Game Network, Inc. v. John Does 1-5, 2010 WL 271426 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2010)
2
Solarbridge Tech., Inc. v. Doe, 2010 WL 3419189 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2010)
3
G2 Prod., LLC v. Does 1-83, 2010 WL 253336 (D.D.C. Jan. 21, 2010)
4
S. New England Tel. Co. v. Global Naps, Inc., 624 F. 3d 123 (2nd Cir. 2010)
5
Wolfe v. Glasgow, 2009 WL 1956687 (M.D. Fla. July 7, 2009)
6
Bass v. Miss Porter?s School, 2009 WL 3724968 (D. Conn. Oct. 27, 2009)
7
U.S. v. Weaver, 2009 WL 2163478 (C.D. Ill. July 15, 2009) (Not Reported)
8
State Farm Ins. Co. v. Policherla, 2009 WL 2170183 (E.D. Mich. July 20, 2009)
9
Whatman v. Davin, 2009 WL 4808807 (D.S.C. Dec. 9, 2009)
10
Thayer v. Chiczewski, 2009 WL 2957317 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 11, 2009)

Zynga Game Network, Inc. v. John Does 1-5, 2010 WL 271426 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2010)

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs sought leave to conduct third party discovery for purpose of identifying defendants, court granted leave to serve third party subpoenas on web hosting sites for purpose of obtaining identifying information, but denied motion to allow additional discovery exceeding the scope of plaintiff?s limited, stated purpose of identification of defendants

Nature of Case: Unauthorized sales of online gambling “chips”

Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information

Solarbridge Tech., Inc. v. Doe, 2010 WL 3419189 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2010)

Key Insight: Court granted leave to subpoena internet service providers to obtain information to reveal the identify of defendant John Doe where plaintiff adequately identified defendant Doe as an individual that accessed and disclosed plaintiff?s confidential information to a competitor; identified its steps to identify the defendant in another fashion (including attempting to contact defendant doe at the email address from which the confidential materials were sent, searching public records, contacting competitors, etc.); established to the court?s satisfaction that its suit could withstand a motion to dismiss; and showed a reasonable likelihood that the discovery would lead to the information necessary to I.D. the defendant and make service possible

Nature of Case: Violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Identity of ISP subscriber

G2 Prod., LLC v. Does 1-83, 2010 WL 253336 (D.D.C. Jan. 21, 2010)

Key Insight: Court granted Motion for Leave to Take Expedited Discovery for the purpose of discovering the identities of defendants, including their true name, address, phone number, etc. because good cause existed for such discovery where identification of the defendants was necessary for the case to progress; court ordered subpoenaed ISPs to notify the subscribers in question to provide an opportunity to quash, but ordered ongoing preservation of the subpoenaed information until resolution of any such motion

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Name of ISP subscribers

S. New England Tel. Co. v. Global Naps, Inc., 624 F. 3d 123 (2nd Cir. 2010)

Key Insight: Finding of contempt and order to pay plaintiffs? attorney?s fees and costs was no abuse of discretion where the court?s order to disclose financial assets was ?perfectly clear? and where there was ?clear and convincing? evidence of defendants? non-compliance and that defendants were not diligent in their attempts to comply; trial court did not abuse discretion in granting default judgment against all defendants in light of willful and bad faith discovery violations, including intentional deletion of ESI and lying about the existence and location of documents which ?formed a pattern of ?prolonged and vexatious obstruction?, and where lesser sanctions would be ineffective and defendants were aware of the consequences of non-compliance with their discovery obligations

Nature of Case: Claims arising from defendants’ failure to pay for special access servers ordered from plaintiff

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Wolfe v. Glasgow, 2009 WL 1956687 (M.D. Fla. July 7, 2009)

Key Insight: Court granted Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum to Non-party upon finding the subpoena ?overly broad on its face? where the subpoena failed to describe the documents sought with any particularity and would have essentially required the large third-party corporation ?to search its entire database of records to produce every document which refers or relates in any way to the named defendants and to [a former employee]?

Nature of Case: Discrimination in violation of Fair Housing Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Bass v. Miss Porter?s School, 2009 WL 3724968 (D. Conn. Oct. 27, 2009)

Key Insight: Upon in camera review of all documents produced to plaintiff by Facebook pursuant to subpoena, and in response to plaintiff?s objection to producing all such documents on the grounds that many were irrelevant and immaterial, court found ?no meaningful distinction? between the pages produced and the pages withheld and stated that ?Facebook usage depicts a snapshot of the user?s relationship and state of mind at the time of the content?s posting? and that ?relevance is more in the eye of the beholder? such that production should not be limited to plaintiff?s determination of what may be ?reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence? and ordered the production of all documents produced by Facebook to defendants, rather than the smaller subset previously provided

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged bullying and harassment of private school student

Electronic Data Involved: Facebook

U.S. v. Weaver, 2009 WL 2163478 (C.D. Ill. July 15, 2009) (Not Reported)

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel production of emails stored for less than 181 days in web-based email account pursuant to government?s trial subpoena upon finding that such emails were not stored for purposes of back up protection and thus not in ?electronic storage? pursuant to The Stored Communications Act such that a warrant was required

Nature of Case: Child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Previously opened emails stored for less than 181 days in web-based account

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

Whatman v. Davin, 2009 WL 4808807 (D.S.C. Dec. 9, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendant?s employee admitted to using her personal computer to work from home and plaintiff thereafter sought to compel defendant?s production of that computer, court found that ?plaintiff?s informal request for a forensic copy of [employee?s] personal home computer does not impose upon the defendants the burden of producing property outside its possession and control? and therefore denied plaintiff?s motion to compel

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Employee’s personal computer

Thayer v. Chiczewski, 2009 WL 2957317 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 11, 2009)

Key Insight: Court ordered third party, AOL, to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for failing to provide a response to defendant?s motion to compel as ordered by the court and gave leave to defendant to commence discovery on AOL?s ability to retrieve requested emails, among other topics, following contradictory representations from AOL and plaintiff regarding the same; court also noted plaintiff?s grant of permission to AOL to produce his emails and that defendant?s subpoena had been appropriately limited as to scope and thus ordered AOL to produce all responsive emails to plaintiff for review prior to production to defendant

Nature of Case: Civil rights action

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.