Tag:Third Party Discovery

1
Bass v. Miss Porter?s School, 2009 WL 3724968 (D. Conn. Oct. 27, 2009)
2
U.S. v. Weaver, 2009 WL 2163478 (C.D. Ill. July 15, 2009) (Not Reported)
3
State Farm Ins. Co. v. Policherla, 2009 WL 2170183 (E.D. Mich. July 20, 2009)
4
Whatman v. Davin, 2009 WL 4808807 (D.S.C. Dec. 9, 2009)
5
Thayer v. Chiczewski, 2009 WL 2957317 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 11, 2009)
6
Snoznik v. Jeld-Wen, 259 F.R.D. 217 (W.D.N.C. 2009)
7
Medcorp, Inc. v. Pinpoint Tech., Inc., 2009 WL 2194036 (D. Colo. July 14, 2009)
8
Zenith Elecs., Inc. v. Vizio, Inc., 2009 WL 3094889 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2009)
9
Brown v. Coleman, 2009 WL 2877602 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2009)
10
In re: Application of Operadora DB Mexico, S.A. De C.V., 2009 2435750 (M.D. Fla. May 28, 2009)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.