Third Party Discovery – Page 8 – Electronic Discovery Law

Doe v. City of San Diego, No. 12-cv-0689-MMA (DHB), 2013 WL 2338713 (S.D. Cal. May 28, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court found plaintiff had standing to challenge city?s subpoena to Verizon Wireless seeking ?any and all records? for Plaintiff?s cellular phone, including texts, instant messages, etc. and found that Verizon was prohibited from disclosing such content by the Federal Stored Communications Act; Verizon was also prohibited from disclosing non-content records where such disclosure to a ?governmental agency? is prohibited; court noted that alternative methods for discovery were available and specifically noted the availability of a Rule 34 request for production

Nature of Case: Claims arising from sexual assault

Electronic Data Involved: Cellular phone records, including content

In re Denture Care Prods. Liab. Litig., 292 F.R.D. 120 (D.D.C. 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court found information sought in third party subpoena was relevant, that production of documents with missing pages or emails without their attachments did not comply with Rule 45, that subpoena was not unduly burdensome, and that forensic investigation of third party?s computers was not yet warranted in spite of ?discrepancies and inconsistencies? in their production, but warned that third party could be required to bear the cost of forensic investigation of their computers if they failed to comply with court?s order to produce all responsive documents

Nature of Case: Products Liability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Maximum Human Performance, LLC v. Sigma-Tau Healthscience LLC, No 12-cv-6526-ES-SCM, 2013 WL 4537790 (D.N.J. Aug. 27, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Upon third party?s objection to Defendant?s subpoena and its motion for cost shifting, the court found that the third party both had an interest in the litigation and an ?ability to pay all or most of the costs to comply with the subpoena? but nonetheless concluded that ?it would not bear all of the costs of compliance? and thus ordered the third party to select an e-Discovery vendor to search the key words agreed upon and ordered that Defendant shall reimburse the third party ?one third of the vendor costs to harvest the electronically stored information?

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Heitzman v. Engelstad, No. 12-cv-2274 (MJD/LIB), 2013 WL 4519403 (D. Minn. July 11, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court quashed subpoena seeking the production of documents reasoning that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she could not ?otherwise obtain access to the documents requested,? and further reasoned that ?even if the documents sought might be relevant? (which was questionable), the subpoena was unduly burdensome because it sought documents and correspondence going back 7 years, when the incident at issue occurred 11 months ago, and because it commanded production of ?all? such documents and made ?no allowance? for materials protected by privilege. In quashing the subpoena, the court also noted the availability of many of the public documents sought from the state court record.

Nature of Case: False arrest and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Non-party’s documents and emails

West Penn Allegheny Health Sys. v. UPMC, No. 2:09-cv-00480-JFC, 2013 WL 12134101 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where a non-party resisted production of requested information arguing that it could be more easily obtained from elsewhere and that production would impose an undue burden, including an estimated $38,00 in personnel costs alone, the court reasoned that there was no rule prohibiting Plaintiff from seeking documents from a non-party that were also likely to be in Defendant?s possession and, addressing the alleged burden, rejected arguments based on the documents? lack of organization (?less than optimal recordkeeping? did not rise to the level of ?undue burden?); where the requesting party offered to pay the costs of collection and review (by outside counsel), court rejected non-party?s privacy concerns in light of the protective order and recommended that if the non-party rejected the cost sharing offer, he should be required to pay for production himself; motion to quash denied

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Smyth v. Merchants Credit Corp., No. C 11-1879RSL, 2013 WL 5200811 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 16, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court declined to compel re-production of data in native format where no form of production was requested and where the producing non-party had already produced responsive information in hard copy

Nature of Case: debt collection

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Ameritox, Ltd. v. Millennium Labs., Inc., No. 8:11-cv-00775-T-24 TBM, 2013 WL 5656064 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 17, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion to quash subpoena that sought documents, deposition transcripts and exhibits from third-party that related to defendant and that were produced by defendant in third-party’s now-settled litigation with defendant because defendant failed to comply with local rule requiring submission of a joint written statement of the matters at issue in the discovery dispute; court further noted there was nothing in the record that the target of the subpoena objected to producing the requested documents, and defendant cited no local or procedural rule which prohibited the plaintiff from subpoenaing the information from the third-party before or after plaintiff requested it from defendant

Nature of Case: Motion to quash subpoena issued by plaintiff in case pending in the Middle District of Florida, listing Nashville, Tenn. as the place of production

Electronic Data Involved: Documents, deposition transcripts and exhibits produced by defendant in other, now-settled litigation

Musket Corp. v. Star Fuel of Okla., No. CIV-11-444-M, 2012 WL 3986344 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 11, 2012); No. CIV-11-444-M, 2012 WL 4363752 (Sept. 21, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where independent forensic examiner was tasked with determining whether plaintiff?s data was present on defendant?s laptop and with maintaining an image of defendant?s laptop sealed from inspection, but where plaintiff reserved the right seek discovery and thereafter subpoened the non-party investigator to produce the mirror image of defendant?s laptop, magistrate judge found that rule 45 subpoena was an appropriate discovery method and denied defendant?s motion to quash; on emergency appeal, the District Court noted that allowing direct inspection of a party?s hard drive was not routine, that because of the presence of potentially privileged material, even plaintiff?s expert should not have access to the entire hard drive without allowing defendant?s to object to the production of certain information and that in light of the short time before trial it was ?simply too late?; court noted that this ?predicament? was one plaintiff ?created itself? by waiting to seek access to the hard drive despite knowing for months of the potential that its data was present there

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

FTC v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., —F. Supp. 2d—, 2012 WL 4888473 (D.D.C. Oct. 16, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where FTC sought to compel defendant to search for and produce responsive ESI on backup tapes, the court resolved the question of what standard must be applied to properly analyze the producing party?s claims of burden (Rule 26(b)(2)(B) ?good cause? to overcome the burden shown by the responding party v. the standard established in FTC v. Texaco Inc., 555 F.2d 862 (DC Cir 1977) ?a showing that compliance with the subpoena ?threatens to unduly disrupt or serious hinder normal operations of a business??) and determined that in light of the narrowed request, the defendant had not established a sufficient burden and thus ordered defendant to conduct a search of the at-issue backup tapes and to produce any non-privileged materials

Nature of Case: Administrative Subpoena

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

Pearson Educ., Inc. v. Doe, No. 12 Civ. 4786(BSJ)(KNF), 2012 WL 4832816 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied motion for expedited discovery to Paypal Inc purportedly intended to determine the identity of an alleged copyright infringer where plaintiff failed to sustain their burden of making a clear and specific showing of good cause and sufficient reason why there motion was necessary, including because plaintiff failed to assert that Doe defendant lived in the relevant judicial district, because plaintiff failed to establish that they exhausted traditional avenues of identification and because the subpoena was overly broad, among other reasons

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information from internet service provider (ISP)

Tag:Third Party Discovery