Third Party Discovery – Page 5 – Electronic Discovery Law

Baranski v. United States, No. 4-11-CV-123 CAS, 2015 WL 3505517 (E.D. Mo. June 3, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court found privilege had been waived where at-issue documents were intermingled with non-privileged documents and produced in a consecutively numbered batch, where the government provided no information regarding how the documents were reviewed, where there was an almost 2 year delay until the production of the privilege log, where the documents were not marked as privileged, where approximately 10% (58/570) of the documents produced were privileged, where at least one privileged document was used as an exhibit in deposition without objection and where the government did not discover the allegedly inadvertent disclosure for nearly two years; where defendant provided evidence of the cost and burden of restoring backup tapes (14 weeks of work at a cost of approximately $85,400) court concluded that at-issue emails were not reasonably accessible and declined to compel production where plaintiff failed to establish that the emails may contain significant information

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

Andra Grp. LP v. JDA Software Grp., LLC, No. 3:15-mc-K-BN, 2015 WL 1636602 (N.D. Tex. April 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court addressed 3rd party?s motion to quash allegedly burdensome subpoena and to preclude further production or to require the defendant to pay for the non-party?s expenses and found that the defendant had demonstrated its needs for ?most of the categories of documents? but also concluded that the 3rd party?s objections should be sustained in part and modified the subpoena?s requests to reduce the burden; Court rejected arguments that 3rd party?s lack of a ?dedicated IT specialist?, use of cloud based email and need to rely on employees? and or hire a vendor establish burden; court also found that ?by producing the documents in non-readable PDF format without the metadata specified by the subpoena?s instructions, and failing to serve any written objections to those instructions, p202 failed to comply with Rule 45(a)(1)(C) and 45(e)(1)?s requirement to comply with the subpoena?s specification of a form for producing ESI? and ordered re-production in accordance with the subpoena?s instruction

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Andra Grp. LP v. JDA Software Grp., Inc, No. 3:15-mc-11-K-BN, 2015 WL 12731762 (N.D. Tex. April 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Magistrate Judge concluded that absent evidence of a special relationship or circumstance that imposed a duty to preserve evidence, a third party did not have an obligation to preserve evidence before it was served with a subpoena, even though it was aware of potential litigation against a party with whom it had a close working relationship. Where the non-party was ordered to search for and produce all responsive information but limited its search to its ShareFile and failed to adequately investigate whether responsive information existed on its computers and other devices, the Magistrate judge reasoned that compliance required more than ?simply asking current employees if they have responsive documents? and concluded that third party?s mere survey of current employees (omitting an employee with a difficult personality) as to whether they had responsive emails without an attempt to search or forensically image any devices in its custody failed to satisfy the Discovery Order?s request to make ?all reasonable efforts to search? for potentially relevant documents, violating Rule 45(g).

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Lozoya v. Allphase Landscape Constr., Inc., No. 12-cv-1048-JLK, 2014 WL 222326 (D. Colo. Jan. 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court ordered production of ESI from plaintiff?s girlfriend?s computer upon finding that the information, including when she searched for an attorney for the plaintiff and the search terms she employed, was relevant to the litigation and ordered the production of plaintiff?s ESI, despite his claims that his computers were ?broken? absent factual support for the contention that the data was not accessible; court further ordered production of all relevant ?phone ESI? in plaintiff?s possession

Nature of Case: Employment litigation (wage and hour)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on plaintiff’s computers and on third party’s computer, “Phone ESI”

In re Transpacific Passenger Air Transp. Antitrust Litig., No. C-07-05634 CRB (DMR), 2014 WL 709555 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2014

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to quash defendant airline’s subpoena to third party Airline Tariff Publication Company (“ATPCO”) which sought production of documents and ESI previously obtained by plaintiffs from ATPCO, search terms and parameters used by plaintiffs, and communications between ATPCO and plaintiffs’ expert, where defendant had chose not to collaborate with plaintiffs and other defendants to identify relevant information, formulate search strings and download the results pursuant to a cost-sharing agreement, and parties’ stipulation regarding experts protected the requested materials from discovery

Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Historical airfare pricing data

In re Subpoena of Drasin, Advanced Career Techs., Inc. v. Does 1-10, No. ELH-13-1140, 2014 WL 585814 (D. Md. Feb. 12, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court granted motion to quash subpoena to administrator of blog on which anonymous users posted disparaging comments about plaintiff because the burdens of the subpoena on the blog administrator — surrendering personal hard drives to plaintiff for up to 30 days, and granting plaintiff access to his personal information on the hard drives — outweighed the very little benefit, if any, that would result from the subpoena, and because the requested information was available from another source, i.e., the blog host, Google

Nature of Case: Defamation, trade libel, commercial disparagement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives and servers

Bell Inc. v. GE Lighting, LLC, 6-14-CV-00012, 2014 WL 1630754 (W.D. Va. Apr. 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court ordered partial cost-shifting of third party?s costs in responding to subpoena upon evaluating several factors, including the third party?s (poor) financial condition, but declined to shift all costs where the third party declined the requesting parties? offer to review the documents – through outside counsel – subject to a clawback agreement (resulting in higher costs) and where the court found the third party was an interested party and that the litigation was not of public importance; court noted in its discussion that ?Courts in this district have found that it is untenable for a party to insist on individually reviewing all documents for privilege and responsiveness, rather than producing documents under a protective order with a claw back provision.?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Cormack v. United States, No. 13-232C, 2014 WL 3555255 (Fed. Cl. July 18, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court found no waiver resulting from the production of a privileged email (work product) in light of the scope of discovery (more than one million pages produced), defendant?s use of ?advanced software to screen for privilege,? and the ?numerous steps? intended to protect privilege as outlined for the court and because counsel sought the email?s return ?within hours? of receiving a filing with the email attached; defendant was also found to be in control of documents in the possession of a ?wholly owned but indirect French subsidiary? in light of the companies? collaboration on the at-issue software as illustrated by the companies? representations to the potential client regarding their collaboration, agreements between the companies, and the close working relationship between the two

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email, documents in possession of non-party

Sasol N. Am., Inc. v. Kan. State Inst. for Commercialization, No. 14-mc-218-JWL-KMH, 2014 WL 3894357 (D. Kan. Aug. 8, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Despite fact that plaintiff served all-encompassing subpoena to third parties without first attempting to access the breadth of information from the defendant, in light of nonparty?s unique relationship with defendant in the underlying Texas litigation, the potential for indemnification, its financial interest in the Texas litigation, and nonparty?s repeated (yet unfulfilled) promises to produce responsive material, court determined it was appropriate for nonparty to bear some burden and that limited production was appropriate; court narrowed relevant timeframe for search and ordered nonparty to use search terms proposed by plaintiff and produce its ESI, including emails, attachments, exhibits and word processing documents, which contain those nine search terms

Nature of Case: Subpoena issued in a patent infringement and trade secret case pending in the Southern District of Texas

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Mazzei v. Money Store, No. 01cv5694 (JGK)(RLE), 2014 WL 3610894 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Defendant failed to preserve data in its control (an issue it hotly contested) when it sold certain assets of its wholly owned subsidiary, including the database/?system? that contained the at issue data; court found failure to preserve was willful and in bad faith and that plaintiff had been prejudiced by the loss; where a non-party who works with defendant indicated that it had information from the at issue system but that the information was not ?readable? and that it would be expensive to extract and convert it, the court ordered defendant to bear the cost of determining whether the system was searchable and to pay plaintiff his attorneys fees for the motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Class action re: violation of Truth in Lending Act

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Tag:Third Party Discovery