Third Party Discovery – Page 19 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re McKesson Governmental Entities Average Wholesale Price Litig., 2009 WL 3706898 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where government agency objected to defendants? subpoena for the production of documents previously produced in a separate litigation on grounds of undue burden and cost based on the assertion that it needed to re-review all documents prior to production because some documents were subject to the deliberative process privilege and others were highly confidential, court held that the privilege had been waived by the agency?s failure to object in its initial response and by the production in separate litigation, ordered the documents produced under the POD ?Confidential, For Outside Attorney Eyes Only? and ordered defendants to bear the costs ?of copying and producing the documents in electronic form?

Nature of Case: Allegations that defendants artificially increased the published price of prescription drugs

Electronic Data Involved: ESI previously produced in separate litigation and maintained in database by third party

Hope for Families & Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. Warren, 2009 WL 1066525 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 21, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found emails withheld by non-party independent contractor were protected by attorney-client privilege (and work product in some cases) where independent contractor acted as representative of plaintiff for purpose of securing bingo license from the county and was authorized to communicate with counsel on plaintiff?s behalf, among other things, and where the subject communications satisfied the five-prong test borrowed from the ?corporate employee context? requiring that the communication was made for the purpose of securing legal advice for the corporation, at the direction of the corporation, that the subject of the communication was within the scope of the independent contractor?s duties, and that the communication was not disseminated beyond persons needing to know its contents; court found common interest doctrine applicable where non-party and plaintiff?s interests were identical pursuant to the terms of their consulting contract and the nature of their relationship

Orbit One Commc?ns, Inc. v. Numerex Corp., 2009 WL 799975 (E.D. La. Mar. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiffs to bear cost of non-party?s production in response to plaintiffs? subpoena where Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 provides for protection of a non-party from undue burden or expense and where the court found the non-party?s expenditure of $6,000 to respond ?significant?; court?s analysis also noted the parties? failure to fix production costs in advance, as discussed in the Advisory Committee Notes, and plaintiffs? awareness of the possibility that the non-party would request reimbursement

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Johnson v. U.S. Bank Nat?l Assoc., 2009 WL 4682668 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 3, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted motion to serve preservation subpoena on third-party prior to the Rule 26(f) conference where plaintiff showed good cause for such a subpoena, including the potential relevance of the documents and the danger of spoliation where the company had been ?dormant? since 2006, and where the subpoena was narrowly tailored to prevent spoliation and did not impose an immediate obligation to produce documents

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Arista Records, LLC v. Does 1-12, 2008 WL 4133874 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Good cause existed to grant plaintiffs’ application for expedited discovery prior to Rule 26(f) conference given possibility that ISP may destroy information that could identify Doe defendants, discovery request was narrowly tailored and would substantially contribute to moving case forward, and defendants could not be identified without requested information; to protect any privacy rights or first amendment protections of Doe defendants, court set out procedure for ISP to first contact subscribers prior to releasing their information and set deadlines for any motions to quash

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Names and contact information for ISP subscribers

digEcor, Inc. v. e.Digital Corp., 2008 WL 4335539 (D. Utah Sept. 16, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant?s subpoenas to plaintiff?s suppliers and customers were overly broad and requested information from too broad a time period, court noted that ?[d]iscovery requests directed to an opponent’s customers are to be approached with caution, even more than is advised in most discovery directed to third-parties,? and ordered that numerous requests be modified or narrowed in scope; court further noted that protective order could sufficiently protect confidential information sought from suppliers

Nature of Case: Breach of contract litigation concerning digital video player intellectual property

Electronic Data Involved: Email, source code, object code, executable code and other ESI

Simon Property Group, Inc. v. Taubman Centers, Inc., 2008 WL 205250 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 24, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where nonparty demonstrated that a search for ESI using terms provided by party returned over 250,000 files and that it would take three employees working full time for four weeks to review files for responsiveness, and party offered to narrow scope by altering time periods, search terms, and servers, court ordered enforcement of subpoena with provision that both parties work in good faith to reduce its scope

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, RICO and other tort claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Laface Records, LLC v. Does, 2008 WL 4517178 (D.D.C. Oct. 6, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court granted motion to serve limited, immediate discovery on third party internet service provider seeking identities and contact information of defendants where court acknowledged ?good cause exists for Plaintiffs? discovery because Defendants must be identified before this suit can progress?; court ordered third party provider to give five days notice to defendants and set deadline for potential motions to quash

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Names and contact information for ISP subscribers

Musarra v. Digital Dish, Inc., 2008 WL 4758699 (D. Ohio Oct. 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where non-party indicated inability to perform electronic search of subpoenaed communication logs and estimated more than 100 hours of manual searching to respond and where subpoenaed information exceeded relevant scope of claims, court declined to impose ?unreasonable burden? on non-party and denied motion to compel; where identification and production of subpoenaed email would result in ?massive expense? but where plaintiffs offered to limit their request to a sampling, court decline to rule pending non-party?s response

Nature of Case: Wage and hour employment case

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Verigy US, Inc. v. Mayder, 2008 WL 4786621 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2008) (Not for Citation)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to produce website information because the information was maintained by and in the custody of a third party internet service provider, and because defendant could not access the materials because its account had expired, court acknowledged general rule that ?production is not ordered unless the responding party has exclusive control of the documents? and plaintiff?s failure to subpoena third party directly but nonetheless ordered defendants to ?take all necessary steps to obtain the requested documents? from third party and for the parties to split the cost

Nature of Case: Misappropriate of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Website

Tag:Third Party Discovery