Tag:Third Party Discovery

1
Whatman v. Davin, 2009 WL 4808807 (D.S.C. Dec. 9, 2009)
2
Thayer v. Chiczewski, 2009 WL 2957317 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 11, 2009)
3
Snoznik v. Jeld-Wen, 259 F.R.D. 217 (W.D.N.C. 2009)
4
Medcorp, Inc. v. Pinpoint Tech., Inc., 2009 WL 2194036 (D. Colo. July 14, 2009)
5
In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to AOL, LLC, 550 F. Supp. 2d 606 (E.D. Va. 2008)
6
U.S. v. Treacy, 2008 WL 5062722 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2008)
7
Sprenger v. Rector of Va. Tech, 2008 WL 2465236 (W.D. Va. June 17, 2008)
8
Opperman v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5071044 (D.N.J. Nov. 24, 2008)
9
Leibholz v. Hariri, 2008 WL 2697336 (D.N.J. June 30, 2008)
10
Arista Records, LLC v. Does 1-4, 589 F. Supp. 2d 151 (D. Conn. 2008)

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

In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to AOL, LLC, 550 F. Supp. 2d 606 (E.D. Va. 2008)

Key Insight: District court upheld magistrate judge’s order quashing State Farm’s subpoena to AOL because: (1) plain language of Electronic Communications Privacy Act prohibited AOL from producing requested email because a civil discovery subpoena was not a disclosure exception under Act; (2) State Farm’s subpoena imposed undue burden because subpoena was overbroad; and (3) court where action was pending was better posed to decide privilege issues

Nature of Case: Former insurance adjusters alleged that State Farm committed fraud in connection with handling of Hurricane Katrina damage claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on AOL’s servers

U.S. v. Treacy, 2008 WL 5062722 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2008)

Key Insight: Court declined to compel government to undertake ?seemingly redundant and unquestionably burdensome? search of 15 disks in witness?s possession where defendant failed to show that documents on disk materially varied from documents already searched and reviewed by government and where government had produced responsive documents discovered in that search pursuant to Rule 16 obligations

Nature of Case: Securities fraud and conspiracy

Electronic Data Involved: Computer disks

Sprenger v. Rector of Va. Tech, 2008 WL 2465236 (W.D. Va. June 17, 2008)

Key Insight: Where factual record was sparse and consisted solely of employer’s internet and email use policy, and no information was provided regarding knowledge, implementation, or enforcement of policy, court observed it had facts to determine only one of the four factors set out in In Re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd ., 322 B.R. 247 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005) and found that defendant had failed to meet its burden of demonstrating waiver of marital privilege; court quashed subpoena to plaintiff?s husband?s employer

Nature of Case: Employee alleged civil rights violations and violations of ADA and FMLA

Electronic Data Involved: ?[A]ll electronically stored information on all computers, laptops, PDA’s, portable media or other devices? utilized by plaintiff’s husband at his place of work relating to plaintiff’s claims

Opperman v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5071044 (D.N.J. Nov. 24, 2008)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs? request for access to third party?s proprietary software where court determined software and its underlying processes were relevant to plaintiffs? claims and that all less intrusive means to obtain the necessary information had been exhausted; court?s order allowed access to the software by plaintiffs? expert but protected the confidentiality of the information with a protective order that placed limitations on who may access the software and limited the use of the information solely to the litigation

Nature of Case: Challenge to accuracy of insurance company estimates for fire damage

Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary software

Leibholz v. Hariri, 2008 WL 2697336 (D.N.J. June 30, 2008)

Key Insight: Court denied third party?s motion to quash and ordered it to produce 30(b)(6) witness to testify regarding maintenance of electronic copies of files, including electronic copies of two contested letters, backup procedures utilized, and document and electronic record retention policies

Nature of Case: Securities fraud, common law fraud, promissory and equitable estoppel, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copies of two disputed letters

Arista Records, LLC v. Does 1-4, 589 F. Supp. 2d 151 (D. Conn. 2008)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs? motion to for leave to take expedited discovery from defendants? internet service providers (two universities) for purpose of identifying Doe defendants where information sought was necessary for continued prosecution of the litigation and where narrowly tailored requests would reduce if not eliminate any prejudice to defendants; court limited discovery to defendants? directory information and MAC (media access control) addresses and provided defendants opportunity to object

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ISP directory information, MAC addresses

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