Third Party Discovery – Page 5 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Bright Sols. For Dyslexia, Inc. v. Doe, No. 15-cv-01618-JSC, 2015 WL 5159125 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court granted motion for expedited discovery to discover the identity of Defendant Doe; court also granted Plaintiffs? ex parte motion for a preservation order directing eBay, PayPal, and Google to preserve account information where the third parties had no independent duty to preserve absent a court order and where Plaintiffs established that: the at-issue data was regularly destroyed by the third parties in their regular business practices, that Plaintiffs would be ?irreparably harmed? by the loss of the at-issue data (because they could not serve Defendant and stop the alleged infringement), and that the third parties had the capability to maintain the information, particularly because of the limited nature of the request

Nature of Case: Trademark and copyright infringement

In re Uehling, No. 1:14-mc-00009-LJO-BAM, 2014 WL 1577459 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion to compel nonparty to answer deposition questions and produce documents, finding that nonparty’s burden of producing copy of external hard drive containing 9.47 gigabytes of information was substantial as the material would need to be reviewed for privilege and for potential redaction and withholding based on confidentiality, privacy and proprietary information purposes, the benefit of the documents to defendant was “minimal,” and defendant had an alternative source for the information sought (i.e., the plaintiff)

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive that non-party witness provided to DOJ in the course of the DOJ’s investigation of plaintiff

Siltronic Corp. v. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau, No. 3:11-cv-1493-ST, 2014 WL 991822 (D. Or. Mar. 13, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: After non-party produced responsive documents and sought reimbursement of $17,298 from defendant, court found that that hourly rate of $65 to $160 to search and copy documents was ?inherently unreasonable? and could not be justified, and invoices were vague and included entries for internal communications and meetings and time for senior scientists “to stand around the copier and copy documents”; court ruled that the defendant’s prior payment of $5,670 — about one-third of the total charge — was a reasonable amount, and that non-party must either absorb or charge the plaintiff for the remainder of its cost to comply with subpoena

Electronic Data Involved: Non-party documents relating to or arising out of specific invoices

In re Warrant to Search a Certain Email Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corporation, No. 13 Mag. 2814, 2014 WL 1661004 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied Microsoft’s motion to quash search warrant that directed Microsoft to produce the contents of one of its customer’s emails stored on a server located in Dublin, Ireland, concluding that, even when applied to information that is stored in servers abroad, an SCA warrant does not violate the presumption against extraterritorial application of American law; in reaching its decision, court analyzed structure of the SCA, its legislative history, and practical consequences that would flow from such an interpretation

Nature of Case: Motion to quash warrant issued under Section 2703(a) of the Stored Communications Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on Internet Service Provider’s server located in Dublin, Ireland

View Case Opinion

Crissen v. Gupta, No. 2:12-cv-00355-JMS-WGH, 2014 WL 1431653 (S.D. Ind. Apr. 14, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court criticized plaintiff for not complying with inadvertent production provision of protective order and ordered plaintiff to delete all copies of the recalled documents and any information gleaned therefrom from its network drive, and further ruled that plaintiff may not use the documents or any work product derived therefrom unless and until it is determined that those documents should have been produced; court further awarded bank its fees and costs in connection with the motion, to be paid by plaintiff’s counsel, because the language of the claw back provision was clear and plaintiff’s counsel not only ignored that language but then took the extra step of reviewing the very documents the bank sought to recall

Nature of Case: Racketeering, fraud, unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: Tax returns, bank documents containing defendants’ personal financial information, and internal bank documents

Vasquez v. Cal. Sch. of Culinary Arts, 230 Cal.App.4th 35(2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Trial court did not err in awarding plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees and costs incurred after successfully opposing Sallie Mae’s motion to quash subpoena, as Sallie Mae lacked substantial justification for its motion given that plaintiffs did not seek to have Sallie Mae extract and compile information from paper files but only asked that Sallie Mae extract ESI from an existing database, plaintiffs never expressed an unwillingness to pay for the reasonable cost of doing so but repeatedly asked for a cost estimate, and Sallie Mae ignored plaintiffs’ requests and did not provide a cost estimate until after its motion to quash had been denied and plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees was being heard

Nature of Case: 1,034 former students asserted claims of fraud, breach of contract and violations of consumer laws

Electronic Data Involved: Loan records maintained by Sallie Mae

A & R Body Specialty & Collision Works, Inc. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., No. 3:07CV929 (WWE), 2014 WL 4437684 (D. Conn. Sep. 9, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Magistrate judge denied as moot defendants’ request for plaintiffs’ consent to release emails stored with third party vendors Earthlink and AT&T in light of vendors? representations that, when an Earthlink.net or ATT.net user deletes an email from Outlook, the email simultaneously is deleted from the vendor’s server and cannot be recovered; magistrate judge also denied plaintiffs’ request for defendants to produce a merged data set, where one data set had 157 columns and was extracted from third-party provider?s system, and second set had more information but used different field identifiers, since a party cannot be compelled to create a document for its production and the creation of requested data compilation would inherently require the creation of a ?document,? and producing party is not required to produce ESI in more than one form

Nature of Case: Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email, data

Lemon Juice v. Twitter, Inc., No. 502898/14, 2014 WL 4287049 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where unknown person created Twitter account in plaintiff?s name and in violation of criminal court’s order took photo of child victim in court testifying against her tormentor and posted it to Twitter account, court ruled that plaintiff had met his burden of demonstrating a meritorious claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and that the discovery sought from Twitter was needed in order to identify who should be named as a defendant, and that anonymous Twitter account creator?s behavior constituted an actionable tort and was not speech covered by First Amendment protection such that anonymity of creator had to yield to plaintiff?s need to redress the actionable wrong perpetrated against him; court directed Twitter to disclose basic subscriber information, records, internet protocol addresses and other similar information sufficient to identify owner of the bogus Twitter account and to preserve certain evidence

Nature of Case: Special proceeding pursuant to CPLR 3102(c) seeking an order directing Twitter to preserve certain evidence and to disclose certain information

Electronic Data Involved: Twitter subscriber information sufficient to identify the individual(s) who owned or operated particular Twitter account and logged into or “tweeted” on the account

Tag:Third Party Discovery