Third Party Discovery – Page 19 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re Application of Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd., 2009 WL 119374 (D. Colo. Apr. 30, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Reasoning that electronic storage devices ?perform the same function as did a file cabinet in the pre-electronic era? and that they must therefore be searched ?just as they would have had to do had all the information been printed out and stored in hard copy format? and also reasoning that ?[t]he fact that duplicate documents may have been stored and maintained in more than one place is irrelevant to the duty to search all locations,? court ordered respondents to subpoenas to conduct additional searches of all electronic storage devices in their possession at the time of their response; where the sharing of production costs had been ordered, court required requesting party to post $1 million pre-judgment cost bond in light of the ?circumstances of the case? including respondents? expenditure of more than $2.5 million and fears that the requesting party would dispute their share and attempt to avoid payment

Nature of Case: Litigation between an international law firm and a new firm comprised of its former employees related to the new firm?s alleged interference in business relationships and breach of certain duties

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Sony BMG Music Entm?t v. Doe, 2009 WL 5252606 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 21, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Considering the five factors established in Sony Music Ent. v. Does 1-40, 326 F.Supp.2d 556(S.D.N.Y. 2004) to determine whether an anonymous defendant?s identity is shielded from discovery by the first amendment (in circumstances such as those presented here), court denied a motion to quash the subpoena seeking anonymous defendant?s identity where plaintiffs made a concrete showing of a prima facie claim, where the subpoena was narrowly drawn and sought limited information, where there was no alternate means of identifying the defendant, where the information was necessary to effect service on the defendant and where ?defendant has little expectation of privacy in allegedly distributing music over the internet without permission of the copyright holder?

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Identity of alleged John Doe infringer

Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenebaum, , 2009 WL 1651338 (D.R.I. June 10, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motion to compel compliance with third party subpoena to allow access to the hard drive of the parents of defendant accused of copyright infringement in a music downloading case where parents were not parties to the action and where the computer was purchased after defendant moved out and thus plaintiffs failed to establish likelihood of the discovery of relevant information sufficient to warrant intrusion into parents? privacy

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive belonging to third party

Negotiated Data Solutions, LLC v. Dell, Inc., 2009 WL 733876 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel production of third party?s ESI where the court found the data relevant and not duplicative or obtainable through other sources and where the court found the protective order in place (and the court?s invitation to seek additional protection if necessary) provided appropriate protection of the third party?s information

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Third party’s ESI, source code

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

Psychopathic Records, Inc. v. Anderson, 2008 WL 4852915 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 7, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Good cause existed to grant (in part) plaintiffs? motion for expedited discovery upon third party internet service providers prior to Rule 26(f) conference where plaintiff established direct connection between a particular email address and defendant, where email address was connected to the sale of allegedly infringing goods, and where ?very real danger? existed that ISPs would not preserve the information; court denied motion as to two email addresses where no showing of a connection to defendant or alleged infringement was made

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Integrated Serv. Solutions, Inc. v. Rodman, 2008 WL 4791654 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of search ?hits? from non-party?s laptop where agreed upon neutral third party conducted search, where counsel reviewed hits and concluded none were relevant, and where plaintiff provided no showing of bad faith or indicia of unreliability; court offered plaintiff option to request report indicating methods utilized in search, broad description of documents hit, and confirmation of no evidence of wiping

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer files

Mabe v. Bell, 2008 WL 4911144 (D. Kan. Nov. 13, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied motion for expedited discovery to image defendants? and third parties? computers pursuant to Rule 45 where inspection sought evidence of defamation unrelated to plaintiff?s claims of fraud in connections with the sale of securities and other related fraud

Nature of Case: Securities fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Email, backup tapes, removable storage units

Am. Mfr. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Payton Lane Nursing Home, 2008 WL 5231831 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs? privilege log specified doc type, doc date, bates numbers, author, recipients and a document title but did not sufficiently describe the content of the document, court ordered production of proper log that must ?identify each document with specificity as is need to demonstrate the communication was made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal services and that the communication was intended to be and was kept confidential.?

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email and hard copy communications

Jackson v. AFSCME Local 196, 2008 WL 1848901 (D. Conn. Apr. 25, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where nonparty stated that in-depth electronic search would need to be conducted in order to produce responsive documents, thus resulting in substantial cost to nonparty, court ordered nonparty to provide plaintiff with estimate of cost and explanation of fees, with copy to court, before embarking on search so plaintiff could decide whether she wished nonparty to proceed; court further ruled that plaintiff must pay nonparty’s compilation fees before delivery of documents to plaintiff

Nature of Case: Union member alleged that union breached its duty of fair representation

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified ESI

Tag:Third Party Discovery