Tag:Third Party Discovery

1
Mintel Int?l Group, Ltd. v. Neerghen, 2008 WL 4936745 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2008)
2
In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to AOL, LLC, 550 F. Supp. 2d 606 (E.D. Va. 2008)
3
U.S. v. Treacy, 2008 WL 5062722 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2008)
4
Sprenger v. Rector of Va. Tech, 2008 WL 2465236 (W.D. Va. June 17, 2008)
5
Opperman v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5071044 (D.N.J. Nov. 24, 2008)
6
Leibholz v. Hariri, 2008 WL 2697336 (D.N.J. June 30, 2008)
7
Arista Records, LLC v. Does 1-4, 589 F. Supp. 2d 151 (D. Conn. 2008)
8
Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2008 WL 2609719 (M.D. Fla. June 30, 2008)
9
Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-14, 2008 WL 5350246 (W.D. Va. Dec. 22, 2008)
10
Goshawk Dedicated Ltd. v. Am. Viatical Servs., LLC, 2008 WL 2901864 (N.D. Ga. July 23, 2008)

Mintel Int?l Group, Ltd. v. Neerghen, 2008 WL 4936745 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2008)

Key Insight: Court declined to compel compliance with subpoena seeking forensic image of third-party competitor?s computer where third party asserted it had no relevant documents on its computers, where an expert?s search confirmed that assertion and where plaintiff failed to establish third party?s possession of documents sought; regarding plaintiff?s claim that defendant?s search was incomplete where it did not include titles or phrases from documents not included in the complaint, court ordered meet and confer regarding supplemental search terms and for third party to allow forensic expert to conduct search

Nature of Case: Violation of Trade Secrets Act, Computer Fraud Abuse Act and terms of employment contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drive

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

Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2008 WL 2609719 (M.D. Fla. June 30, 2008)

Key Insight: Where third party responded to subpoena stating that responsive information was contained in previous productions by plaintiffs but refused to identify which documents previously produced came from its files, court ordered third party to produce Rule 30(b)(6) witness with most knowledge of how third party maintained its business records, both in paper and in electronic form; court further ordered that deposition be conducted at third party?s regular place of business and, if responsive to questions, third party?s corporate representatives must allow defense counsel and its IT expert or consultant to view third party?s computer(s) to determine how information was organized and stored therein; court further ordered third party to produce ESI in native format with metadata

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified ESI

Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-14, 2008 WL 5350246 (W.D. Va. Dec. 22, 2008)

Key Insight: Where a university responded to a subpoena seeking ?all documents and electronically-stored information relating to the assignment of the IP addresses? of unidentified, suspected copyright infringers by producing file logs identifying the dorm rooms associated with the IP addresses at issue and the MAC addresses of the devices used to access the internet, but where it could not provide the names to which the addresses were assigned because the rooms were shared, court denied motion to compel based on specific language of subpoena but permitted service of a third subpoena specifically seeking names of the residents of each room at issue

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Names of ISP subscribers

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