Third Party Discovery – Page 17 – Electronic Discovery Law

Snoznik v. Jeld-Wen, 259 F.R.D. 217 (W.D.N.C. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where testifying expert created and utilized electronic templates which he considered proprietary to create his report, court granted expert?s motion for a protective order and declined to compel production of the templates upon finding that the templates were not relevant to the actual issues at trial, that the defendant failed to show a need for the templates in light of expert?s production of underlying data used to create his report, that the expert properly sought a protective order to address the issues of confidentiality, and that the potential harm to the expert outweighed the potential (non-existent) harm to defendant

Nature of Case: Negligence, breach of implied warranty and express warranty and loss of consortium

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic templates used to create expert report

Medcorp, Inc. v. Pinpoint Tech., Inc., 2009 WL 2194036 (D. Colo. July 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Noting that a party seeking discovery from a non-party ?must satisfy a burden of proof heavier than the ordinary burden imposed by Rule 26 relating to discovery on any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action,? the special master quashed certain of plaintiff?s requests as overly broad and unduly burdensome including a request for forensic copies of a non-party?s employee work stations and server computers and a request for detailed information related to a the non-party?s technical environment, among others

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic copies

Zenith Elecs., Inc. v. Vizio, Inc., 2009 WL 3094889 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of documents by non-party pursuant to subpoena where court determined non-party did not have control of the documents requested because such documents were maintained by foreign parent company and non-party did not have access to them in the ordinary course of business

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, source code

Brown v. Coleman, 2009 WL 2877602 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where expert witness destroyed relevant surgical logs and resisted production of alternative evidence upon the objection that a review of all patient files would be unduly burdensome, court denied motion to compel production of the logs but ordered that as a sanction for spoliation, the expert would not be allowed to testify as to the number of fat grafting procedures he had performed, and would have to be qualified as an expert based on other information

Nature of Case: Medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Surgical records

In re: Application of Operadora DB Mexico, S.A. De C.V., 2009 2435750 (M.D. Fla. May 28, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where non-party to international arbitration sought to quash subpoena on grounds including the undue burden of searching for and producing electronic discovery, magistrate judge recommended that electronic data previously produced by non-party in prior litigation should be produced but that the parties should meet and confer regarding the production of additional data and should specifically address including: the medium on which the data was stored, the volume of data, the practicability of searching the data, and the likely costs associated with production

Nature of Case: International arbitration over franchise rights in Mexico

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Whatman, Inc. v. Davin, 2009 WL 3698390 (D.S.C. Nov. 3, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted Motion to Quash where the court determined that the subpoena was unduly burdensome on the non-party and that ?the discovery sought can be obtained from more reasonable discovery methods, namely pursuit of full responses by the defendants to interrogatories and requests for production along with additional or supplemental examination of the defendants? electronically stored documents?

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, etc.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

United States v. Cinergy, Corp., 2009 WL 6327414 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 10, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Inadvertent production of privileged material by third party pursuant to subpoena waived defendants? privilege protection where third party?s disclosure was found to be tantamount to defendant?s disclosure because of the nature of their relationship and where defense counsel failed to take any steps to prevent the production of privileged materials despite being asked specifically if privilege issues were implicated in the production (to which he answered ?no?) and despite the low volume of materials produced; court noted that although there was no legal obligation for defendants to conduct a post-production review, ?had [they] done so, they might well have noticed the email at issue before Plaintiffs did, and the result in this case might have been different.?

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Whitlow v. Martin, 2009 WL 3381013 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where third-party presented evidence that responding to subpoena would require searching hundreds of locations, would require the restoration of back up tapes, and would take ?over two years to accomplish and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars,? court modified subpoena to narrow scope of the request, but ordered production of relevant documents, ?even if they [were] not reasonably accessible?

Nature of Case: Allegations of wrongful termination in furtherance of political scheme

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Dassault Systemes, S.A. v. Childress, 2009 WL 3602084 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 27, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted leave to serve subpoena to procure computers and documents seized from the defendant despite finding that the items were procured through the coercive powers of the grand jury (and thus subject to stricter showing to compel their discovery) where plaintiff showed the evidence would be otherwise available through civil discovery and where the court could not conceive how such access would reveal anything about the nature, direction or scope of the grand jury?s inquiry

Nature of Case: Copyright and trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Computers

Viacom Int?l, Inc. v. YouTube Inc., 2009 WL 102808 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted defendants? motion to compel production of third party?s materials related to plaintiffs despite objections where documents sought were relevant and where the alleged burden was insufficient in light of probable reimbursement to third party by plaintiffs, plaintiffs? performance of the necessary privilege review, and third party?s prior success in reducing the volume of responsive documents; where defendants sought third party material unrelated to plaintiffs, court ordered defendants and third party to meet and confer regarding scope of production and ordered defendants to bear the cost; court also ordered meet and confer regarding format of production, including specific consideration of granting defendants access to Kroll database where documents were stored

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Third Party Discovery