Tag:Third Party Discovery

1
Guy Chem. Co., Inc. v. Romaco AG, 243 F.R.D. 310 (N.D. Ind. 2007)
2
Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2007 WL 708593 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 5, 2007)
3
Tomlinson v. El Paso Corp., 245 F.R.D. 474 (D. Colo. 2007)
4
Claredi Corp. v. Seebeyond Tech. Corp., 2007 WL 735018 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 8, 2007)
5
Corvello v. New England Gas Co., Inc., 243 F.R.D. 28 (D.R.I. 2007)
6
ACS Consultant Co., Inc. v. Williams, 2007 WL 674608 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 5, 2007)
7
In re Maura, 842 N.Y.S.2d 851 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2007)
8
Qantum Communications Corp. v. Star Broad., Inc., 473 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (S.D. Fla. 2007)
9
Reiman v. Does 1-1000, 2007 WL 1271157 (W.D. Wash. May 1, 2007)
10
O’Bar v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 2007 WL 1299180 (W.D.N.C. May 2, 2007)

Guy Chem. Co., Inc. v. Romaco AG, 243 F.R.D. 310 (N.D. Ind. 2007)

Key Insight: Where non-party used outside computer firm to handle its electronic data and estimated that cost to comply with subpoena would be $7,200, court found that data was “not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost” but ordered production in light of good cause shown, with cost of production to be paid by party who issued subpoena

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Routine business documents stored electronically

Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2007 WL 708593 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 5, 2007)

Key Insight: Where first tier of discovery showed numerous similarities between certain CAD files, drawing and specifications maintained by the parties, court found that second tier of limited additional discovery was warranted and ordered defendant’s current employer to produce materials relating to four additional projects; court further entered order on parties’ agreement relating to forensic imaging of current employer’s computer servers and desktops at plaintiff’s expense

Nature of Case: Design firm sued former vice president under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Computer files

Tomlinson v. El Paso Corp., 245 F.R.D. 474 (D. Colo. 2007)

Key Insight: Court rejected defendants’ claim that they had no control over third party’s ?computerized infrastructure? and ordered production of electronic pension plan records by defendants; because ERISA sets out employer’s responsibilities for the proper maintenance and retention of pension and welfare plan records and employer cannot delegate those duties, records maintained by third party were in “possession, custody or control” of defendants for purposes of discovery

Nature of Case: Claims under ERISA

Electronic Data Involved: Pension and welfare plan records maintained by third party

Claredi Corp. v. Seebeyond Tech. Corp., 2007 WL 735018 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 8, 2007)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff showed that defendant failed to produce hundreds of responsive emails which plaintiff ultimately obtained through third-party discovery, court found defendant’s discovery conduct to be dilatory and inadequate and imposed sanction of $54,000 for plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees, and another $20,000 payable to the court as sanction for unnecessarily prolonging and increasing the expense of the litigation

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other electronic documents

Corvello v. New England Gas Co., Inc., 243 F.R.D. 28 (D.R.I. 2007)

Key Insight: Court concluded that any privilege that may have attached to documents inadvertently produced on CD was waived, since non-party?s counsel failed to exercise due care when he produced CD without first reviewing it, failed to immediately accept party?s offer to temporarily halt its document review after he was alerted that some of the documents on CD appeared to be internal communications with counsel, and furnished an inadequate privilege log after two-week delay

Nature of Case: Litigation between gas company and landowners

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged documents inadvertently produced on CD

ACS Consultant Co., Inc. v. Williams, 2007 WL 674608 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 5, 2007)

Key Insight: Court quashed subpoena issued by plaintiff directing YAHOO! Inc. to produce all emails sent or received by individual defendant during specific time period in light of privacy and privilege concerns, but advised that plaintiff could obtain a new subpoena that was limited in scope

Nature of Case: Breach of employment agreement and wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

In re Maura, 842 N.Y.S.2d 851 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2007)

Key Insight: Court ordered that non-party law firm’s hard drive be imaged, and that law firm (not plaintiff) would be entitled to select computer forensic expert to conduct cloning process; court further ordered parties to confer on details and set basic timeframe for cloning and review of material, and ruled that plaintiff would be responsible for costs associated with search and production

Nature of Case: Proceeding to determine the validity of a right of election

Electronic Data Involved: Law firm computer

Qantum Communications Corp. v. Star Broad., Inc., 473 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (S.D. Fla. 2007)

Key Insight: Court imposed sanctions of default judgment and award of reasonable attorney fees and costs based upon defendants’ pattern of discovery misconduct, which included defendant’s lying under oath regarding key issue in case and failing to produce key “smoking gun” documents; court set hearing to determine the appropriate amount of damages and fees and costs

Nature of Case: Action for specific performance of asset purchase agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Reiman v. Does 1-1000, 2007 WL 1271157 (W.D. Wash. May 1, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied pro se plaintiff?s request for a subpoena in case against Doe defendants, in part because subpoena sought more than mere production of documents and materials already in existence, and appeared to mandate the creation of new electronically stored information

Nature of Case: Unspecified claims against Doe defendants

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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