View by Topic
Duties Respecting Electronic Evidence > View All
Hoxie v. Livingston County, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79544 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 5, 2010).
Plaintiff was permitted to obtain a mirror image of the hard drive of a county jail computer because the numbering system on the jail's master list of electronically stored jail policies differed from the numbering on actual policies produced by the jail.
Plaintiff was permitted to obtain a mirror image of the hard drive of a county jail computer because the numbering system on the jail's master list of electronically stored jail policies differed from the numbering on actual policies produced by the jail.
Multiven, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71221 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2010).
After plaintiff reported that it would take two or three more months to finish its document review, the court expanded duties of a special master to include design of a search protocol and selection of a vendor to assist plaintiff in reviewing documents. The court approved an agreement of the parties to share equally in the cost of the vendor.
After plaintiff reported that it would take two or three more months to finish its document review, the court expanded duties of a special master to include design of a search protocol and selection of a vendor to assist plaintiff in reviewing documents. The court approved an agreement of the parties to share equally in the cost of the vendor.
David v. Signal International, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78171 (E.D. La. July 6, 2010).
Plaintiffs were ordered to cull out about 3,000 documents produced by defendant that plaintiffs contended were over-redacted, and defendant was ordered to verify that the documents were properly redacted to remove personally identifying information. The court concluded that the "only solution" to claims of over-redaction "given the massive scope of the production" was "an equitable one."
Plaintiffs were ordered to cull out about 3,000 documents produced by defendant that plaintiffs contended were over-redacted, and defendant was ordered to verify that the documents were properly redacted to remove personally identifying information. The court concluded that the "only solution" to claims of over-redaction "given the massive scope of the production" was "an equitable one."
In re Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. Securities Litigation, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71295 (D.N.M. July 1, 2010).
The motion of plaintiffs in a federal securities class action for a partial lifting of the PSLRA stay of discovery pending resolution of a motion to dismiss the action was denied. The trustee in bankruptcy for the principal defendant assured the court there would be no spoliation of evidence that included mirror images of computer drives, and the need of plaintiffs for more information to evaluate a possible settlement for available insurance proceeds was insufficient to cause them undue prejudice from the stay.
The motion of plaintiffs in a federal securities class action for a partial lifting of the PSLRA stay of discovery pending resolution of a motion to dismiss the action was denied. The trustee in bankruptcy for the principal defendant assured the court there would be no spoliation of evidence that included mirror images of computer drives, and the need of plaintiffs for more information to evaluate a possible settlement for available insurance proceeds was insufficient to cause them undue prejudice from the stay.
Humphrey v. Sallie Mae, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60176 (D.S.C. June 17, 2010).
Plaintiff was granted leave to conduct expedited discovery before the initial discovery conference by serving a subpoena on her cellular phone service provider. The purpose of the subpoena was to obtain electronic data related to the call that formed the basis of her complaint, and the data was subject to being purged pursuant to the provider's ordinary data retention policies and procedures.
Plaintiff was granted leave to conduct expedited discovery before the initial discovery conference by serving a subpoena on her cellular phone service provider. The purpose of the subpoena was to obtain electronic data related to the call that formed the basis of her complaint, and the data was subject to being purged pursuant to the provider's ordinary data retention policies and procedures.
Helmert v. Butterball, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60777 (E.D. Ark. May 27, 2010).
Defendant did not have to restore and search for responsive data on backup tapes because plaintiff had "no idea what, if any, discoverable information may be obtained" from the search.
Defendant did not have to restore and search for responsive data on backup tapes because plaintiff had "no idea what, if any, discoverable information may be obtained" from the search.
Aponte-Navedo v. Nalco Chemical Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50957 (D.P.R. May 20, 2010).
A request in an employment discrimination action for information regarding databases and computer information was overbroad because it was not restricted to defendant's Puerto Rico office where plaintiff worked.
A request in an employment discrimination action for information regarding databases and computer information was overbroad because it was not restricted to defendant's Puerto Rico office where plaintiff worked.
Fidelity Information Services, Inc. v. Debtdomain GLMS PTE Ltd., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50055 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2010).
A plaintiff that failed to respond to defendant's motion to compel production of documents was denied reconsideration of an order directing plaintiff to produce "any electronic documents created prior to October 1, 2008" that were responsive to defendant's request. Since plaintiff had failed to respond to defendants' motion to compel, there was nothing the court overlooked that could be reconsidered.
A plaintiff that failed to respond to defendant's motion to compel production of documents was denied reconsideration of an order directing plaintiff to produce "any electronic documents created prior to October 1, 2008" that were responsive to defendant's request. Since plaintiff had failed to respond to defendants' motion to compel, there was nothing the court overlooked that could be reconsidered.
Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Convatec Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46976 (M.D.N.C. May 12, 2010).
An "informed suspicion that additional non-privileged documents exist" could not "alone support an order compelling production of documents."
An "informed suspicion that additional non-privileged documents exist" could not "alone support an order compelling production of documents."
Storozynski v. AmerLink Construction Co. (In re AmerLink, Ltd.), 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 1533 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. May 4, 2010).
A defendant obtained postponement of his deposition until after plaintiffs produced e-mail and taped conversations of the defendants. The substantive value of the evidence sought to be discovered by the defendant outweighed the impeachment value of the evidence at the defendant's deposition.
A defendant obtained postponement of his deposition until after plaintiffs produced e-mail and taped conversations of the defendants. The substantive value of the evidence sought to be discovered by the defendant outweighed the impeachment value of the evidence at the defendant's deposition.
Graves v. Doe, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41376 (D. Utah Apr. 27, 2010).
Plaintiffs who alleged that unknown defendants accessed their private email accounts were given permission to subpoena internet service providers for information that could be used to identify the defendants.
Plaintiffs who alleged that unknown defendants accessed their private email accounts were given permission to subpoena internet service providers for information that could be used to identify the defendants.
Ferron v. Subscriberbase Holdings, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34414 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 22, 2010).
An attorney who sought damages following email solicitations to him from defendants was ordered to provide defendants with the Internet Protocol address used by his office and with information about his participation in similar cases.
An attorney who sought damages following email solicitations to him from defendants was ordered to provide defendants with the Internet Protocol address used by his office and with information about his participation in similar cases.
Phillip M. Adams & Associates, LLC v. Fujitsu Ltd., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25417 (D. Utah Mar. 17, 2010).
Defendant was permitted to subpoena information from nonparties on their communications with defendant but was required to pay the nonparties' cost of complying with the subpoenas issued under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 in order to protect the nonparties from undue burden or cost.
Defendant was permitted to subpoena information from nonparties on their communications with defendant but was required to pay the nonparties' cost of complying with the subpoenas issued under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 in order to protect the nonparties from undue burden or cost.
Adhiparasakthi Charitable, Medical, Educational, and Cultural Society of North America v. Township of West Pikeland, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25542 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 16, 2010).
Defendant's e-discovery expert was given access to plaintiff's computers to determine whether responsive information was still available on hard drives or servers. Plaintiff had stated that to the extent responsive email existed but had not been produced already, it had been deleted in the ordinary course of business and could not be produced.
Defendant's e-discovery expert was given access to plaintiff's computers to determine whether responsive information was still available on hard drives or servers. Plaintiff had stated that to the extent responsive email existed but had not been produced already, it had been deleted in the ordinary course of business and could not be produced.
In re Subpoenas, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21947 (W.D. Va. Mar. 10, 2010).
A multinational drug company was ordered to produce email of three employees over seven years in response to a government subpoena. Any undue burden of the company in restoring backup tapes preserved for other litigation in order to produce the subpoenaed email was the result of the company's "policy or practice of retaining documents … in a format that shrouds them in practical obscurity."
A multinational drug company was ordered to produce email of three employees over seven years in response to a government subpoena. Any undue burden of the company in restoring backup tapes preserved for other litigation in order to produce the subpoenaed email was the result of the company's "policy or practice of retaining documents … in a format that shrouds them in practical obscurity."
Hamilton v. First America Title Insurance Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21157 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2010).
Although briefing on class certification was complete, plaintiffs were entitled to further production of information relevant to class certification because the issue of class certification remained open throughout class litigation.
Although briefing on class certification was complete, plaintiffs were entitled to further production of information relevant to class certification because the issue of class certification remained open throughout class litigation.
U.S. Bank National Association v. Parker, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11579 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 10, 2010).
Plaintiff's request for expedited discovery of defendant's personal cell phone, PDA, and computer was denied because defendant represented to the court that evidence sought by plaintiff would not be altered or destroyed.
Plaintiff's request for expedited discovery of defendant's personal cell phone, PDA, and computer was denied because defendant represented to the court that evidence sought by plaintiff would not be altered or destroyed.
Dowling v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 2299 (6th Cir. Feb. 3, 2010).
A district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' request for more time for discovery and granting summary judgment to defendants. While plaintiffs' counsel "should be applauded for beginning discovery requests informally, he was dilatory in failing to make formal discovery requests when informal requests proved unavailing."
A district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' request for more time for discovery and granting summary judgment to defendants. While plaintiffs' counsel "should be applauded for beginning discovery requests informally, he was dilatory in failing to make formal discovery requests when informal requests proved unavailing."
Fields v. Lemmon, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6214 (S.D. W. Va. Jan. 26, 2010).
Although plaintiffs that put their medical condition in issue had to produce medical records in their possession, the court had no authority to order them to sign medical record releases allowing medical providers to transmit records directly to defendants.
Although plaintiffs that put their medical condition in issue had to produce medical records in their possession, the court had no authority to order them to sign medical record releases allowing medical providers to transmit records directly to defendants.
Rodriguez-Torres v. Government Development Bank of Puerto Rico, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3958 (D.P.R. 2010).
Articles suggesting that email was more conducive to derogatory remarks did not provide good cause under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B) for requiring defendant in an employment discrimination case to produce electronic documents that the court considered not reasonably accessible due to a $35,000 search cost.
Articles suggesting that email was more conducive to derogatory remarks did not provide good cause under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B) for requiring defendant in an employment discrimination case to produce electronic documents that the court considered not reasonably accessible due to a $35,000 search cost.
Cornwell v. Northern Ohio Surgical Center, Ltd., 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 5814 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2009).
A trial court order allowing plaintiff's creation of mirror images of defendant's computer hard drives that contained protected medical information of non-party patients was affirmed. Plaintiff's computer forensics expert would not be reviewing file contents when creating mirror images. He would be using search terms only to identify files on the mirror images that defendant would review prior to production.
A trial court order allowing plaintiff's creation of mirror images of defendant's computer hard drives that contained protected medical information of non-party patients was affirmed. Plaintiff's computer forensics expert would not be reviewing file contents when creating mirror images. He would be using search terms only to identify files on the mirror images that defendant would review prior to production.
Thompson v. Quorum Health Resources, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113479 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 7, 2009).
Defendant did not have to produce records from backup tapes maintained by defendant's former parent company that had been dissolved. Defendant had made a good faith and specific claim of undue burden and costs, and plaintiff had not presented any evidence that defendant's estimates were not accurate.
Defendant did not have to produce records from backup tapes maintained by defendant's former parent company that had been dissolved. Defendant had made a good faith and specific claim of undue burden and costs, and plaintiff had not presented any evidence that defendant's estimates were not accurate.
Johnson v. United States Bank National Association, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120111 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 3, 2009).
Despite the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) ban on "discovery from any source" prior to the Rule 26(f) discovery conference of the parties, plaintiff was permitted to issue a preservation subpoena to a third party. The subpoena required identification and protection by the third party of responsive documents but did not immediately obligate the third party to produce documents.
Despite the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) ban on "discovery from any source" prior to the Rule 26(f) discovery conference of the parties, plaintiff was permitted to issue a preservation subpoena to a third party. The subpoena required identification and protection by the third party of responsive documents but did not immediately obligate the third party to produce documents.
North American Rescue Products, Inc. v. Bound Tree Medical, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118316 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 19, 2009).
A non-party was not entitled to reimbursement of its costs and attorney fees in providing electronic files in response to plaintiff's subpoena. The non-party did not wait for a court order before beginning its production, and it admitted that the subpoena sought relevant documents.
A non-party was not entitled to reimbursement of its costs and attorney fees in providing electronic files in response to plaintiff's subpoena. The non-party did not wait for a court order before beginning its production, and it admitted that the subpoena sought relevant documents.
Calixto v. Watson Bowman Acme Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111659 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2009).
The court determined without the need for Zubulake-type analysis that defendant should not be required to restore backup tapes. Plaintiff had not made the preliminary showing required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B) that whatever the type of discovery sought, it would be relevant and non-duplicative. The court also denied plaintiff's request for letters of request under the Hague Convention because information sought from overseas likely was duplicative of information already obtained by plaintiff.
The court determined without the need for Zubulake-type analysis that defendant should not be required to restore backup tapes. Plaintiff had not made the preliminary showing required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B) that whatever the type of discovery sought, it would be relevant and non-duplicative. The court also denied plaintiff's request for letters of request under the Hague Convention because information sought from overseas likely was duplicative of information already obtained by plaintiff.
MRT, Inc. v. Vounckx, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 8351 (Tex. App. Dallas Oct. 30, 2009).
Defendants had no duty under Texas discovery rules to disclose the existence of backup tapes and then to object that the backup tapes or electronic documents on the tapes were not reasonably available because plaintiffs "did not initially specifically request production of the backup tapes or documents that resided only on" the backup tapes.
Defendants had no duty under Texas discovery rules to disclose the existence of backup tapes and then to object that the backup tapes or electronic documents on the tapes were not reasonably available because plaintiffs "did not initially specifically request production of the backup tapes or documents that resided only on" the backup tapes.
Lake v. City of Phoenix, “Lake II”, 2009 Ariz. LEXIS 257 (Ariz. Oct. 29, 2009).
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that metadata within Arizona public records maintained in electronic format was subject to disclosure under Arizona's public records laws.
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that metadata within Arizona public records maintained in electronic format was subject to disclosure under Arizona's public records laws.
Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment (Shanghai) Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103759 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2009).
An email by plaintiff's chief executive officer was properly designated as confidential information within the meaning of a protective order and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G), given the court's broad latitude to grant protective orders and defendant's plan to use the email to encourage a government investigation and additional lawsuits against plaintiff.
An email by plaintiff's chief executive officer was properly designated as confidential information within the meaning of a protective order and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G), given the court's broad latitude to grant protective orders and defendant's plan to use the email to encourage a government investigation and additional lawsuits against plaintiff.
Smith v. Life Investors Insurance Company of America, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96310 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 16, 2009).
Defendant was ordered to instruct its e-discovery vendor to determine how many documents would be retrieved using each of five phrases suggested by plaintiff to limit the number of documents that would be retrieved using only a single term common to each of the phrases.
Defendant was ordered to instruct its e-discovery vendor to determine how many documents would be retrieved using each of five phrases suggested by plaintiff to limit the number of documents that would be retrieved using only a single term common to each of the phrases.
Whitlow v. Martin, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96011 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2009).
Objections by a non-party state government official to a subpoena were sustained in part after the official estimated that the document search required by the subpoena would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and take over two years. However, the official was required to search for and produce official personnel records related to 2117 alleged patronage employees for a one-year period and records related to any sponsors of the employees because the relevance of such documents provided good cause for production even if the records were not reasonably accessible within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1)(D).
Objections by a non-party state government official to a subpoena were sustained in part after the official estimated that the document search required by the subpoena would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and take over two years. However, the official was required to search for and produce official personnel records related to 2117 alleged patronage employees for a one-year period and records related to any sponsors of the employees because the relevance of such documents provided good cause for production even if the records were not reasonably accessible within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1)(D).
Brooks v. Frattaroll, 2009 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 148 (Pa. County Ct. Oct.5, 2009).
In a matter of first impression, a Pennsylvania state court considering plaintiff's request to allow expert examination of defendant's computers provided factors to consider in balancing "potential usefulness and abusiveness" of the discovery. The court granted defendant's request for a protective order but invited plaintiff to make "a more focused" discovery request "founded upon more clearly identified justification."
In a matter of first impression, a Pennsylvania state court considering plaintiff's request to allow expert examination of defendant's computers provided factors to consider in balancing "potential usefulness and abusiveness" of the discovery. The court granted defendant's request for a protective order but invited plaintiff to make "a more focused" discovery request "founded upon more clearly identified justification."
Dawe v. Corrections USA, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96461 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2009).
A third-party plaintiff was ordered to produce his personal computer to defendants for inspection at defendants' initial cost because contention and distrust permeated the litigation, the plaintiff refused to permit even a limited inspection, and the computer of another plaintiff, according to defendants, had been "forensically cleaned" prior to defendants' inspection.
A third-party plaintiff was ordered to produce his personal computer to defendants for inspection at defendants' initial cost because contention and distrust permeated the litigation, the plaintiff refused to permit even a limited inspection, and the computer of another plaintiff, according to defendants, had been "forensically cleaned" prior to defendants' inspection.
Beall v. Tyler Technologies, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87447 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 22, 2009).
A court order requiring defendant to produce "email addresses, where available" required production of any email addresses, including workplace email addresses provided by defendant to its employees, where plaintiffs could contact potential class members.
A court order requiring defendant to produce "email addresses, where available" required production of any email addresses, including workplace email addresses provided by defendant to its employees, where plaintiffs could contact potential class members.
Wixon v. Wyndham Resort Development Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86337 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2009).
Defendant's "overly narrow and hyper-technical reading" of an agreement with plaintiffs to limit pre-class certification discovery led the court to sanction defendant by refusing to consider the sur-rebuttal report of defendant's expert on class certification issues.
Defendant's "overly narrow and hyper-technical reading" of an agreement with plaintiffs to limit pre-class certification discovery led the court to sanction defendant by refusing to consider the sur-rebuttal report of defendant's expert on class certification issues.
Thayer v. Chiczewski, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84176 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 11, 2009).
A non-party email service provider that displayed a "cavalier attitude" toward defendant's subpoena seeking email deleted by plaintiff prompted the court to order the provider to show cause why it should not be held in contempt and to pay defendant's reasonable fees and costs in obtaining discovery about the provider's ability to recover plaintiff's email.
A non-party email service provider that displayed a "cavalier attitude" toward defendant's subpoena seeking email deleted by plaintiff prompted the court to order the provider to show cause why it should not be held in contempt and to pay defendant's reasonable fees and costs in obtaining discovery about the provider's ability to recover plaintiff's email.
High Voltage Beverages, LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88259 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 7, 2009).
Under the proportionality standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C), the court held that defendant did not have to review its collection of 17 gigabytes or 1.5 million pages of documents assembled through litigation holds in other actions. Defendant was willing to allow plaintiff to search through the collection, and counsel for defendant unequivocally stated that all relevant documents already had been provided to plaintiff in earlier productions.
Under the proportionality standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C), the court held that defendant did not have to review its collection of 17 gigabytes or 1.5 million pages of documents assembled through litigation holds in other actions. Defendant was willing to allow plaintiff to search through the collection, and counsel for defendant unequivocally stated that all relevant documents already had been provided to plaintiff in earlier productions.
Lawson v. Plantation General Hospital, L.P., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81753 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2009).
Defendant was not obligated to supplement its Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) initial disclosure with documents that the parties first learned about during a deposition. Rule 26 permitted descriptions of categories of documents in lieu of production of the documents, the documents were described at the deposition, and defendant stated that it did not intend to use the documents at trial in support of the defense.
Defendant was not obligated to supplement its Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) initial disclosure with documents that the parties first learned about during a deposition. Rule 26 permitted descriptions of categories of documents in lieu of production of the documents, the documents were described at the deposition, and defendant stated that it did not intend to use the documents at trial in support of the defense.
Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane County v. County of Spokane, 2009 Wash. App. LEXIS 1986 (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2009).
A County violated Washington's public records act by failing to search the prior computer of an employee who created a key document in order to determine when the document was created. Evidence showed that the computer was "rebuilt" and given to another County employee almost three months after the County received the request for the document that was on the computer.
A County violated Washington's public records act by failing to search the prior computer of an employee who created a key document in order to determine when the document was created. Evidence showed that the computer was "rebuilt" and given to another County employee almost three months after the County received the request for the document that was on the computer.
In re DirecTech Southwest, Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69142 (E.D. La. Aug. 7, 2009).
Although defendants contended that using terms suggested by plaintiffs for a search of defendants' electronically stored information would cost $100,000, the court ordered defendants to use the terms and complete the search within ten working days. Plaintiffs' terms were more appropriate than the limited terms suggested by defendants for the discovery required for plaintiffs to respond to defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Although defendants contended that using terms suggested by plaintiffs for a search of defendants' electronically stored information would cost $100,000, the court ordered defendants to use the terms and complete the search within ten working days. Plaintiffs' terms were more appropriate than the limited terms suggested by defendants for the discovery required for plaintiffs to respond to defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Barton Group, Inc. v. NCR Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62852 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2009).
Defendant was not obligated to categorize its electronic records according to plaintiff's document requests because the parties had agreed, subject to a strict confidentiality agreement, that defendant could produce its electronic documents without prior review.
Defendant was not obligated to categorize its electronic records according to plaintiff's document requests because the parties had agreed, subject to a strict confidentiality agreement, that defendant could produce its electronic documents without prior review.
In re State Street Bank & Trust Co. Fixed Income Funds Investment Litigation, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68484 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2009).
A subpoena to an employer for pre-employment information about a new hire who was a former employee of a defendant was quashed. It was extremely unlikely that the employee's transition to a new job was relevant to alleged inattentiveness of the employee while employed by the defendant in communicating that a bond fund consisted mostly of subprime securities.
A subpoena to an employer for pre-employment information about a new hire who was a former employee of a defendant was quashed. It was extremely unlikely that the employee's transition to a new job was relevant to alleged inattentiveness of the employee while employed by the defendant in communicating that a bond fund consisted mostly of subprime securities.
Kilpatrick v. Breg, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52723 (S.D. Fla. June 22, 2009).
Based on a record indicating that documents responsive to plaintiff's discovery requests had not been produced, plaintiff was allowed to search five of defendant's backup tapes for email of seven key employees using limited search terms. However, the search would be at plaintiff's cost because trial was about to begin and the court questioned the likelihood that any relevant documents that had not been produced would be found.
Kravetz v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51230 (D. Ariz. June 10, 2009).
Plaintiff, who filed a disability claim, was ordered to produce his computer hard drives to an insurer for inspection, but the inspection was limited to searching for metadata that would indicate the amount of typing plaintiff did each day.
Plaintiff, who filed a disability claim, was ordered to produce his computer hard drives to an insurer for inspection, but the inspection was limited to searching for metadata that would indicate the amount of typing plaintiff did each day.
In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Products Liability Litigation, “Zurn Pex II”, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47636 (D. Minn. June 5, 2009).
Additional discovery by plaintiffs of defendants' electronically stored information to support class certification was limited by the court to 14 search terms in order to avoid hits on irrelevant documents and to lessen the costs and time for the search. Defendants estimated that the search requested by plaintiffs would require 17 weeks and over $1 million in review costs in addition to outside vendor costs.
Additional discovery by plaintiffs of defendants' electronically stored information to support class certification was limited by the court to 14 search terms in order to avoid hits on irrelevant documents and to lessen the costs and time for the search. Defendants estimated that the search requested by plaintiffs would require 17 weeks and over $1 million in review costs in addition to outside vendor costs.
Feig v. Apple Organization, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49081 (S.D. Fla. May 29, 2009).
A defendant that went out of business and sold its server to a third party was ordered to search through email accounts of 27 employees on the server and to produce responsive email. In response to defendant's undue burden argument, the court directed that defendant could seek a protective order only if a computer forensics expert agreed that the search could be performed only through a document-by-document review of the email on the server.
A defendant that went out of business and sold its server to a third party was ordered to search through email accounts of 27 employees on the server and to produce responsive email. In response to defendant's undue burden argument, the court directed that defendant could seek a protective order only if a computer forensics expert agreed that the search could be performed only through a document-by-document review of the email on the server.
Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43439 (E.D.N.Y. May 22, 2009).
A true conflict between U.S. discovery rules and Israeli bank confidentiality laws led a U.S. court to decline to compel a non-party bank to produce protected documents. The documents sought by defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 were located in Israel, were unlikely to be helpful to defendant in responding to plaintiff's claims, and were covered by Israeli laws providing civil liability and criminal penalties if disclosed by the bank.
A true conflict between U.S. discovery rules and Israeli bank confidentiality laws led a U.S. court to decline to compel a non-party bank to produce protected documents. The documents sought by defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 were located in Israel, were unlikely to be helpful to defendant in responding to plaintiff's claims, and were covered by Israeli laws providing civil liability and criminal penalties if disclosed by the bank.
Weiss v. National Westminster Bank, PLC, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35103 (E.D.N.Y. May 14, 2007).
Despite British bank customer secrecy laws, a bank in London was ordered to produce documents requested by U.S. citizens who were victims of terrorist attacks in Israel. The records concerned a bank customer that the victims claimed had assisted in financing the organization that carried out the attacks, and the mutual interest of British and U.S. governments in combating financing of terrorism outweighed the British interest in preserving bank customer secrecy.
Despite British bank customer secrecy laws, a bank in London was ordered to produce documents requested by U.S. citizens who were victims of terrorist attacks in Israel. The records concerned a bank customer that the victims claimed had assisted in financing the organization that carried out the attacks, and the mutual interest of British and U.S. governments in combating financing of terrorism outweighed the British interest in preserving bank customer secrecy.
McGarry v. Becher, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40879 (S.D. Ind. May 13, 2009).
Production of a printout or other download of current memories of tasers used at a county jail was ordered. Plaintiff contended there had been excessive use of the tasers, and the memories would show tests and other uses of the tasers over the previous six to eight months.
Production of a printout or other download of current memories of tasers used at a county jail was ordered. Plaintiff contended there had been excessive use of the tasers, and the memories would show tests and other uses of the tasers over the previous six to eight months.
United States v. Jack, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 43120 (E.D. Cal. May 9, 2009).
Based upon the government’s assurance that no communications were intercepted by the National Security Agency or other government agency involving defendants charged with conspiring to overthrow a foreign government, the court denied defendants’ request for an order requiring production of such interceptions or of an affidavit describing the nature of the search performed by the government and verifying that no responsive documents existed.
Based upon the government’s assurance that no communications were intercepted by the National Security Agency or other government agency involving defendants charged with conspiring to overthrow a foreign government, the court denied defendants’ request for an order requiring production of such interceptions or of an affidavit describing the nature of the search performed by the government and verifying that no responsive documents existed.
Artie's Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1286 (Conn. Super. Ct. May 7, 2009).
An insurer's ultimate production of 2.5 million documents over five years was not a good faith response to requests for production because 1.4 million of the 2.5 million documents had been provided after fact discovery and fact depositions had closed. The insurer was ordered to pay the costs of necessary re-depositions and of conversion of the 1.4 million documents to a searchable OCR format.
An insurer's ultimate production of 2.5 million documents over five years was not a good faith response to requests for production because 1.4 million of the 2.5 million documents had been provided after fact discovery and fact depositions had closed. The insurer was ordered to pay the costs of necessary re-depositions and of conversion of the 1.4 million documents to a searchable OCR format.
Etzion v. Etzion, “Etzion III”, 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3643 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't May 5, 2009).
A trial court’s denial of a former spouse’s motion for discovery of data on her former husband’s personal and business computers was reversed. The spouse adequately alleged fraud by her former husband in claiming not to have a deal pending at the time of their divorce settlement that resulted in the post-divorce sale of one of his properties at 13 times its appraised value.
A trial court’s denial of a former spouse’s motion for discovery of data on her former husband’s personal and business computers was reversed. The spouse adequately alleged fraud by her former husband in claiming not to have a deal pending at the time of their divorce settlement that resulted in the post-divorce sale of one of his properties at 13 times its appraised value.
Starbucks Corp. v. ADT Security Services, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120941 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 30, 2009).
The court ordered production of archived email despite defendant's contention that an estimated $834,285 cost made the email not reasonably accessible. After reviewing actual proposals obtained by plaintiff's counsel for the discovery ranging up to about $30,000, the court concluded defendant's estimate was exaggerated.
The court ordered production of archived email despite defendant's contention that an estimated $834,285 cost made the email not reasonably accessible. After reviewing actual proposals obtained by plaintiff's counsel for the discovery ranging up to about $30,000, the court concluded defendant's estimate was exaggerated.
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Schroeder, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39378 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2009).
A motion to compel production of internal notes and draft memoranda of a non-party law firm generated during preparation of a special committee report on a company’s stock option practices was denied. The law firm documents had not been disclosed outside the law firm, and the defendant executive in the stock option backdating case did not demonstrate that the law firm materials were crucial to his defense.
A motion to compel production of internal notes and draft memoranda of a non-party law firm generated during preparation of a special committee report on a company’s stock option practices was denied. The law firm documents had not been disclosed outside the law firm, and the defendant executive in the stock option backdating case did not demonstrate that the law firm materials were crucial to his defense.
State ex rel. Morgan v. Strickland, 2009 Ohio LEXIS 1029 (Ohio Apr. 24, 2009).
The Ohio Supreme Court held that although Ohio’s governor failed to provide a required estimate of the “reasonable time” within which the governor would respond to a request for public records, a writ of mandamus would be limited to compelling the governor to continue reviewing records and to provide responsive records within a reasonable time.
The Ohio Supreme Court held that although Ohio’s governor failed to provide a required estimate of the “reasonable time” within which the governor would respond to a request for public records, a writ of mandamus would be limited to compelling the governor to continue reviewing records and to provide responsive records within a reasonable time.
Bank of Mongolia v. M&P Global Financial Services, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39239 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2009).
After plaintiff obtained electronic documents from third parties that should have been produced by defendant, the court ordered appointment of an independent expert as an officer of the court to retrieve deleted files from defendants’ records.
After plaintiff obtained electronic documents from third parties that should have been produced by defendant, the court ordered appointment of an independent expert as an officer of the court to retrieve deleted files from defendants’ records.
Plew v. Limited Brands, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39715 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2009).
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3), email between defendants and a non-party concerning plaintiff’s claims was protected from disclosure to plaintiff by the work product doctrine. The email from defendants to the non-party was prepared at the request of defendants’ counsel.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3), email between defendants and a non-party concerning plaintiff’s claims was protected from disclosure to plaintiff by the work product doctrine. The email from defendants to the non-party was prepared at the request of defendants’ counsel.
Patterson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34585 (D. Kan. Apr. 23, 2009).
The court denied plaintiff’s motion for an order requiring defendant to produce backup tapes for almost ten years and to provide information about defendant’s policies regarding computer systems, email storage, and employee use of company and personal computers. The parties had failed to follow the district court’s local guidelines for electronically stored information, and plaintiff had served its requests for production just three and a half months before the close of discovery.
The court denied plaintiff’s motion for an order requiring defendant to produce backup tapes for almost ten years and to provide information about defendant’s policies regarding computer systems, email storage, and employee use of company and personal computers. The parties had failed to follow the district court’s local guidelines for electronically stored information, and plaintiff had served its requests for production just three and a half months before the close of discovery.
Matter of Hearst Corp. v. State, 2009 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 868 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009).
New York State officials were ordered to produce spreadsheets of payroll records constructed to omit social security numbers in response to a Freedom of Information Law request that sought payroll records and related metadata.
New York State officials were ordered to produce spreadsheets of payroll records constructed to omit social security numbers in response to a Freedom of Information Law request that sought payroll records and related metadata.
Southeastern Mechanical Services, Inc. v. Brody, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36183 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2009).
Defendant’s motion to compel production of electronic records was denied because the motion was filed three months after the deadline for discovery and plaintiff had affirmatively stated that it had produced all responsive documents.
Defendant’s motion to compel production of electronic records was denied because the motion was filed three months after the deadline for discovery and plaintiff had affirmatively stated that it had produced all responsive documents.
Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Laboratories, Ltd., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31555 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 14, 2009).
Although Zubulake established a general rule that a party did not have to preserve “inaccessible” information on backup tapes beyond normal retention times established by company policy, an exception to that rule for email and other documents of key employes that could be located on backup tapes and were not otherwise available was applied by the court.
Although Zubulake established a general rule that a party did not have to preserve “inaccessible” information on backup tapes beyond normal retention times established by company policy, an exception to that rule for email and other documents of key employes that could be located on backup tapes and were not otherwise available was applied by the court.
City of Dallas v. Dallas Morning News, LP, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 2514 (Tex. App. Dallas Apr. 9, 2009).
Email to or from a mayor’s Blackberry which did not go through a city’s server was not “public information” under the Texas Public Information Act unless it was shown that the city had a right of access to the email and that the email was collected, assembled, or maintained in connection with official business of the city.
Email to or from a mayor’s Blackberry which did not go through a city’s server was not “public information” under the Texas Public Information Act unless it was shown that the city had a right of access to the email and that the email was collected, assembled, or maintained in connection with official business of the city.
Newman v. Borders, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29020 (D.D.C. Apr. 6, 2009).
Rather than order a second deposition of a representative of defendant to obtain more knowledgeable testimony on defendant’s retention of email, the court directed defendant to file an affidavit with responses to specific questions posed by the court.
Rather than order a second deposition of a representative of defendant to obtain more knowledgeable testimony on defendant’s retention of email, the court directed defendant to file an affidavit with responses to specific questions posed by the court.
State v. Rivas, "Rivas II", 2009 Ohio LEXIS 861 (Ohio Mar. 31, 2009).
The prosecution could not be ordered to provide a mirror image of a police hard drive from which the prosecution provided a transcript of evidence unless the defendant first made a prima facie showing that the information in the transcript was false, incomplete, adulterated, or spoliated.
The prosecution could not be ordered to provide a mirror image of a police hard drive from which the prosecution provided a transcript of evidence unless the defendant first made a prima facie showing that the information in the transcript was false, incomplete, adulterated, or spoliated.
Averett v. Honda of America Mfg., Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30179 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 24, 2009).
Requiring defendant to search all records referring to plaintiff during her 17 years as defendant’s employee was considered “overly burdensome.” According to the court, recent revisions to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) “communicate the message that discovery is not unlimited.”
Requiring defendant to search all records referring to plaintiff during her 17 years as defendant’s employee was considered “overly burdensome.” According to the court, recent revisions to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) “communicate the message that discovery is not unlimited.”
William A. Gross Construction Associates, Inc. v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22903 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2009).
The court issued a “wake-up call” to lawyers in the Southern District of New York “about the need for careful thought, quality control, testing, and cooperation with opposing counsel in designing search terms or ‘keywords’ to be used to produce emails or other electronically stored information.”
The court issued a “wake-up call” to lawyers in the Southern District of New York “about the need for careful thought, quality control, testing, and cooperation with opposing counsel in designing search terms or ‘keywords’ to be used to produce emails or other electronically stored information.”
White v. Graceland College Center for Professional Development & Lifelong Learning, Inc., “White II”, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22068 (D. Kan. Mar. 18, 2009).
Discrepancies in the times that three email documents and their attachments were created led the court to order defendants to produce the same email from in-boxes in addition to sent boxes and to produce the PST and OST files for the email. The parties also were ordered to agree on a protocol for inspection of defendants’ hard drives, but plaintiff’s request to inspect system clocks without knowing that motherboards had not been changed was denied for being a futile exercise.
Discrepancies in the times that three email documents and their attachments were created led the court to order defendants to produce the same email from in-boxes in addition to sent boxes and to produce the PST and OST files for the email. The parties also were ordered to agree on a protocol for inspection of defendants’ hard drives, but plaintiff’s request to inspect system clocks without knowing that motherboards had not been changed was denied for being a futile exercise.
Virgin Records America, Inc. v. Doe, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21701 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 16, 2009).
A third party subpoena to a university to disclose the identity of the student using an internet protocol address to share music files was sufficiently specific to override the student’s First Amendment right to anonymity. The student’s argument that the IP address was registered to someone else was a defense that should be raised in his answer or other pleading rather than in an objection to a subpoena.
A third party subpoena to a university to disclose the identity of the student using an internet protocol address to share music files was sufficiently specific to override the student’s First Amendment right to anonymity. The student’s argument that the IP address was registered to someone else was a defense that should be raised in his answer or other pleading rather than in an objection to a subpoena.
State v. Dingman, 2009 Wash. App. LEXIS 550 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2009).
Defendant’s conviction for theft and money laundering was reversed because the trial court denied his motion to have the State turn over for inspection computers seized from defendant or mirror images of the computers in a program that defense counsel had rather than in the program used by the State.
Defendant’s conviction for theft and money laundering was reversed because the trial court denied his motion to have the State turn over for inspection computers seized from defendant or mirror images of the computers in a program that defense counsel had rather than in the program used by the State.
Independent Newspapers, Inc. v. Brodie, 2009 Md. LEXIS 18 (Md. Feb. 27, 2009).
In a case of first impression, Maryland’s highest court set a process by which a plaintiff in a defamation action could obtain the identity of anonymous posters of allegedly defamatory statements on an Internet message board.
In a case of first impression, Maryland’s highest court set a process by which a plaintiff in a defamation action could obtain the identity of anonymous posters of allegedly defamatory statements on an Internet message board.
Motown Record Co., L.P. v. Kovalcik, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14217 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 23, 2009).
A student’s abuse of process counterclaim against record companies filing John Doe complaints and then serving pre-discovery subpoenas on universities to learn the identity of students sharing music files was dismissed. Under the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, the record companies had a First Amendment right to petition the courts for redress to protect their business interests.
A student’s abuse of process counterclaim against record companies filing John Doe complaints and then serving pre-discovery subpoenas on universities to learn the identity of students sharing music files was dismissed. Under the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, the record companies had a First Amendment right to petition the courts for redress to protect their business interests.
In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Boucher), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13006 (D. Vt. Feb. 19, 2009).
The target of a grand jury investigation was ordered to produce an unencrypted copy of his laptop computer drive to the grand jury. The target had lost his Fifth Amendment protection when he opened the drive during a border stop to allow an agent to see files with possibly incriminating information.
The target of a grand jury investigation was ordered to produce an unencrypted copy of his laptop computer drive to the grand jury. The target had lost his Fifth Amendment protection when he opened the drive during a border stop to allow an agent to see files with possibly incriminating information.
Arista Records LLC v. Does, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12159 (N.D.N.Y Feb. 18, 2009).
“Doe” defendants were not entitled to an order quashing a subpoena to a state university from record companies seeking identification of persons who allegedly shared copyrighted music files. In a copyright infringement action, according to the court, the “minimal First Amendment right to remain anonymous must yield to Plaintiffs’ right to use discovery … to gather computer users’ identities.”
“Doe” defendants were not entitled to an order quashing a subpoena to a state university from record companies seeking identification of persons who allegedly shared copyrighted music files. In a copyright infringement action, according to the court, the “minimal First Amendment right to remain anonymous must yield to Plaintiffs’ right to use discovery … to gather computer users’ identities.”
Mintel International Group v. Neergheen, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7436 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2009).
Plaintiff’s attempt to obtain mirror images of a third party competitor’s computer hard drives was denied. Forensic experts differed as to possible wiping of USB devices of defendant that contained fragments of documents from plaintiff, and there had been no showing that any documents from plaintiff stored on the USB devices had been transferred to a computer of the competitor.
Plaintiff’s attempt to obtain mirror images of a third party competitor’s computer hard drives was denied. Forensic experts differed as to possible wiping of USB devices of defendant that contained fragments of documents from plaintiff, and there had been no showing that any documents from plaintiff stored on the USB devices had been transferred to a computer of the competitor.
Lake v. City of Phoenix, 2009 Ariz. App. LEXIS 10 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2009).
Public records in Arizona included computerized notes of a supervisor in a police department but not the metadata underlying those notes that would verify when the records were created.
Public records in Arizona included computerized notes of a supervisor in a police department but not the metadata underlying those notes that would verify when the records were created.
Waldman v. Wachovia Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1988 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2009).
The automatic stay of discovery in a securities class action under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 while a motion to dismiss was pending was partially lifted by the court. Defendants were required to produce documents they already had produced to government regulators so that plaintiffs could evaluate whether to continue their action following defendants’ settlement with regulators that included “some compensation” to the plaintiff class.
The automatic stay of discovery in a securities class action under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 while a motion to dismiss was pending was partially lifted by the court. Defendants were required to produce documents they already had produced to government regulators so that plaintiffs could evaluate whether to continue their action following defendants’ settlement with regulators that included “some compensation” to the plaintiff class.
In re Fannie Mae Securities Litigation, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 9 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 6, 2009).
Although appreciative of a federal regulatory agency’s hiring of 50 contract attorneys and expense of more than nine percent of the agency’s annual budget in order to comply with a stipulated discovery order, a U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court finding of contempt against the agency for efforts that were “too little, too late.” The court also affirmed a sanction requiring the agency to produce (although without waiver of privilege) deliberative process privilege documents of the agency that had not been logged within a deadline for privilege logs.
Although appreciative of a federal regulatory agency’s hiring of 50 contract attorneys and expense of more than nine percent of the agency’s annual budget in order to comply with a stipulated discovery order, a U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court finding of contempt against the agency for efforts that were “too little, too late.” The court also affirmed a sanction requiring the agency to produce (although without waiver of privilege) deliberative process privilege documents of the agency that had not been logged within a deadline for privilege logs.
Gipson v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103822 (D. Kan. Dec. 23, 2008).
Parties that had filed over 115 motions in less than a year of litigation were ordered to read the Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation. They also were ordered to prepare for appointment of a discovery master if they could not agree on better handling of discovery and other pretrial disputes.
Parties that had filed over 115 motions in less than a year of litigation were ordered to read the Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation. They also were ordered to prepare for appointment of a discovery master if they could not agree on better handling of discovery and other pretrial disputes.
State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Seneca County Board of Commissioners, 2008 Ohio 6253 (Ohio Dec. 9, 2008).
A local government was ordered to restore and allow inspection by a newspaper of email that officials deleted in violation of a public record retention schedule. Also, the government was ordered to pay the cost of the restoration because the newspaper sought inspection but not production of the email.
A local government was ordered to restore and allow inspection by a newspaper of email that officials deleted in violation of a public record retention schedule. Also, the government was ordered to pay the cost of the restoration because the newspaper sought inspection but not production of the email.
Arista Records LLC v. Doe, "Doe lll", 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99791 (D. Conn. Dec. 9, 2008).
Plaintiff record companies were granted permission to serve Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoenas on Yale University and the University of Connecticut in order to identify “Doe” defendants at the universities who allegedly infringed upon plaintiffs’ copyrights through file sharing on the internet services provided by the universities.
Plaintiff record companies were granted permission to serve Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoenas on Yale University and the University of Connecticut in order to identify “Doe” defendants at the universities who allegedly infringed upon plaintiffs’ copyrights through file sharing on the internet services provided by the universities.
Amasia Acoustics, LLC v. GN Hearing Care Corp., 2008 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1430 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 9, 2008).
A trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting summary judgment to defendant while plaintiff’s experts attempted unsuccessfully to access backup tapes produced by defendant because plaintiff apparently did not “act diligently to ascertain the contents of the backup tapes.”
A trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting summary judgment to defendant while plaintiff’s experts attempted unsuccessfully to access backup tapes produced by defendant because plaintiff apparently did not “act diligently to ascertain the contents of the backup tapes.”
AIU Ins. Co. v. TIG Ins. Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96693 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2008).
The fact that documents referring to employees of plaintiff were drafted before the use of email became widespread did not excuse plaintiff from its obligation to search email of the employees for documents responsive to defendant’s discovery request.
The fact that documents referring to employees of plaintiff were drafted before the use of email became widespread did not excuse plaintiff from its obligation to search email of the employees for documents responsive to defendant’s discovery request.
Psychopathic Records, Inc. v. Anderson, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95788 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 7, 2008).
Plaintiffs were granted leave to file a third-party subpoena on an email service provider to obtain and preserve email correspondence of defendant relating to alleged sales of copyright infringing products.
Plaintiffs were granted leave to file a third-party subpoena on an email service provider to obtain and preserve email correspondence of defendant relating to alleged sales of copyright infringing products.
Kinnally v. Rogers Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93659 (D. Ariz. Nov. 7, 2008).
A request for sanctions against defendant for its failure to send out a written litigation hold until years after defendant’s layoff of its employees was denied. A finding of spoliation to support sanctions had to be based on a clear showing of destruction of evidence rather than on facts only suggesting that evidence may have been destroyed.
A request for sanctions against defendant for its failure to send out a written litigation hold until years after defendant’s layoff of its employees was denied. A finding of spoliation to support sanctions had to be based on a clear showing of destruction of evidence rather than on facts only suggesting that evidence may have been destroyed.
Integrated Service Solutions, Inc. v. Rodman, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101653 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2008).
The court refused to permit plaintiff “to thumb through an electronic file drawer to double-check” a third party’s document review after counsel for the third party represented that the only documents found on a laptop and responsive to a Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoena were irrelevant and could not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
The court refused to permit plaintiff “to thumb through an electronic file drawer to double-check” a third party’s document review after counsel for the third party represented that the only documents found on a laptop and responsive to a Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoena were irrelevant and could not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Spieker v. Quest Cherokee, LLC, "Spieker I ", 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88103 (D. Kan. Oct. 30, 2008).
Plaintiffs’ motion prior to class certification to compel production of electronically stored information that defendant estimated would cost about $375,000 was denied by the court because plaintiffs had not explained how the information was relevant to the issue of class certification.
Plaintiffs’ motion prior to class certification to compel production of electronically stored information that defendant estimated would cost about $375,000 was denied by the court because plaintiffs had not explained how the information was relevant to the issue of class certification.
Dong Ah Tire & Rubber Co. v. Glasforms, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90708 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2008).
The duty under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1) to supplement production of documents did not cover email generated after the relevant time frame of the production of documents.
The duty under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1) to supplement production of documents did not cover email generated after the relevant time frame of the production of documents.
Southern Capitol Enterprises v. Conseco Services, L.L.C., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87618 (M.D. La. Oct. 24, 2008).
Defendants were not required to produce further data that plaintiffs claimed was necessary to determine damages because experts could estimate damages from data already produced.
Defendants were not required to produce further data that plaintiffs claimed was necessary to determine damages because experts could estimate damages from data already produced.
Containment Technologies Group, Inc. v. American Society of Health System Pharmacists, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80688 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 10, 2008).
A protective order was approved allowing designations of entire documents produced in discovery as “confidential” even if only portions of the documents contained information to be protected. Recently-enacted Fed. R. Evid. 502 expressed a cost-benefit approach to waivers of privilege when dealing with the enormous volume of documents in electronic discovery, and a similar approach led the court to hold that more precise designations of confidentiality were only necessary for the relatively few documents filed in court.
A protective order was approved allowing designations of entire documents produced in discovery as “confidential” even if only portions of the documents contained information to be protected. Recently-enacted Fed. R. Evid. 502 expressed a cost-benefit approach to waivers of privilege when dealing with the enormous volume of documents in electronic discovery, and a similar approach led the court to hold that more precise designations of confidentiality were only necessary for the relatively few documents filed in court.
Temploy, Inc. v. Companion Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78572 (S.D. Ala. Oct. 6, 2008).
Although plaintiff had conceded its contract claim against defendant, the court reopened discovery because defendant after the close of discovery produced an email string in which defendant’s employee raised questions about defendant’s performance under the contract.
Although plaintiff had conceded its contract claim against defendant, the court reopened discovery because defendant after the close of discovery produced an email string in which defendant’s employee raised questions about defendant’s performance under the contract.
ReedHycalog UK, Ltd. v. United Diamond Drilling Services, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93177 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2008).
Defendants who responded to a document request with a “data dump” of electronic documents that were not reviewed for relevance were ordered to use only documents resulting from use of search terms on the data dump.
Defendants who responded to a document request with a “data dump” of electronic documents that were not reviewed for relevance were ordered to use only documents resulting from use of search terms on the data dump.
Shirk v. Fifth Third Bancorp, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85793 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 26, 2008).
A court’s order to produce documents from two years of backup tapes before deciding whether to order production from backup tapes of later years did not excuse defendant from producing documents from additional backup tapes for the initial two years that defendant acknowledged only after the court’s order.
A court’s order to produce documents from two years of backup tapes before deciding whether to order production from backup tapes of later years did not excuse defendant from producing documents from additional backup tapes for the initial two years that defendant acknowledged only after the court’s order.
Kipperman v. Onex Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71629 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 19, 2008).
Defendants’ objections to production of documents that defendants contended were irrelevant or too voluminous were denied. While the court was sympathetic to the massive amount of discovery in the case, defendants had failed to take advantage of the court’s invitation to limit search terms and the number of sources being searched.
Defendants’ objections to production of documents that defendants contended were irrelevant or too voluminous were denied. While the court was sympathetic to the massive amount of discovery in the case, defendants had failed to take advantage of the court’s invitation to limit search terms and the number of sources being searched.
Mendez v. Unitrin Direct Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84088 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2008).
A non-party’s motion to quash a subpoena to testify at trial was denied. Although the non-party’s deposition had been videotaped, a crucial email from the non-party’s office had not been produced prior to the deposition and the non-party had not been questioned on the substance of the email.
A non-party’s motion to quash a subpoena to testify at trial was denied. Although the non-party’s deposition had been videotaped, a crucial email from the non-party’s office had not been produced prior to the deposition and the non-party had not been questioned on the substance of the email.
Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. Hubbell, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85380 (N.D.N.Y Sept. 12, 2008).
While Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) permitted production of documents as the documents were ordinarily retained, production of 405,367 text-searchable pages of documents in 202 unlabeled folders failed to include information needed to make the production useful to the requesting party and failed to meet the requirements of Rule 34. The court ordered the producing party to provide an index of the documents listing the custodian, location, and general description of the filing system applicable to each document.
While Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) permitted production of documents as the documents were ordinarily retained, production of 405,367 text-searchable pages of documents in 202 unlabeled folders failed to include information needed to make the production useful to the requesting party and failed to meet the requirements of Rule 34. The court ordered the producing party to provide an index of the documents listing the custodian, location, and general description of the filing system applicable to each document.
Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Grede Foundries, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78530 (D. Kan. Sept. 3, 2008).
Email relating to track repairs was included within “all documents” relating to efforts of a railroad to repair a track bed, and the email had to be produced.
Email relating to track repairs was included within “all documents” relating to efforts of a railroad to repair a track bed, and the email had to be produced.
FTC v. Lane-Labs, USA, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64776 (D.N.J. Aug. 25, 2008).
An expert’s email to counsel providing thoughts on the report of the opposing side’s expert did not have to be disclosed to the opposing side pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) because the email was written over a year after the expert had produced his own report and could not have been considered in connection with his opinion in his report.
An expert’s email to counsel providing thoughts on the report of the opposing side’s expert did not have to be disclosed to the opposing side pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) because the email was written over a year after the expert had produced his own report and could not have been considered in connection with his opinion in his report.
Flagg v. City of Detroit, "Flagg II", 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64735 ( E.D. Mich. Aug. 22, 2008).
Whether discovery through a subpoena of copies of customer text messages held by a text messaging service provider was barred by the Stored Communications Act remained an open question after the court ordered plaintiff to convert its subpoena to a Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 request to defendants for production of documents held by the service provider but effectively under defendants’ control.
Whether discovery through a subpoena of copies of customer text messages held by a text messaging service provider was barred by the Stored Communications Act remained an open question after the court ordered plaintiff to convert its subpoena to a Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 request to defendants for production of documents held by the service provider but effectively under defendants’ control.
Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63115 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2008).
Defendant web site hosts would not violate the Stored Communications Act by providing otherwise publicly available information on their servers in response to a discovery request, and a search of their 1500 servers for content related to 67 specific web sites was not shown to be unduly burdensome.
Defendant web site hosts would not violate the Stored Communications Act by providing otherwise publicly available information on their servers in response to a discovery request, and a search of their 1500 servers for content related to 67 specific web sites was not shown to be unduly burdensome.
United States v. Barlow, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59105 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2008).
The government was ordered to produce post-report email of its expert witnesses after the court rejected the contention that the experts could compartmentalize information they received after preparing their reports in order not to rely on that information in giving their expert testimony at trial.
The government was ordered to produce post-report email of its expert witnesses after the court rejected the contention that the experts could compartmentalize information they received after preparing their reports in order not to rely on that information in giving their expert testimony at trial.
Hightower v. Heritage Academy of Tulsa, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57078 (N.D. Okla. July 29, 2008).
Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of email of four of defendant’s board members relating to plaintiff or her employment by defendant for four years was granted. Defendant failed to show the email was not reasonably accessible, and defendant’s objection to production was undermined by defendant’s failure to produce, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C), other responsive documents to which the objection did not apply.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of email of four of defendant’s board members relating to plaintiff or her employment by defendant for four years was granted. Defendant failed to show the email was not reasonably accessible, and defendant’s objection to production was undermined by defendant’s failure to produce, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C), other responsive documents to which the objection did not apply.
Arista Records, LLC v. Doe, "Doe ll", 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57734 (S.D. Ohio July 29, 2008).
A subpoena to a non-party university requiring identification of users of the university’s internet server for music file sharing was upheld. However, if the Internet Protocol addresses of the users belonged to separate individuals, the action would be dismissed against all but the first of nine individual “Doe” defendants for improper joinder.
A subpoena to a non-party university requiring identification of users of the university’s internet server for music file sharing was upheld. However, if the Internet Protocol addresses of the users belonged to separate individuals, the action would be dismissed against all but the first of nine individual “Doe” defendants for improper joinder.
Huang v. Gateway Hotel Holdings, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49780 (E.D. Mo. June 18, 2008).
Although plaintiffs had to disclose what data storage devices they had, they did not have to produce the devices in response to defendant’s request for production of all such devices for inspection by a forensic consulting expert. Defendant first had to demonstrate a need for the inspection before production of the devices would be required.
Although plaintiffs had to disclose what data storage devices they had, they did not have to produce the devices in response to defendant’s request for production of all such devices for inspection by a forensic consulting expert. Defendant first had to demonstrate a need for the inspection before production of the devices would be required.
Oracle Corp. v. SAP AG, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88330 (N.D. Cal. July 3, 2008).
Defendants were ordered to provide plaintiffs with documents that defendants had provided to a grand jury, except for documents already otherwise produced to plaintiffs and except for wholly irrelevant email such as personal employee email.
Defendants were ordered to provide plaintiffs with documents that defendants had provided to a grand jury, except for documents already otherwise produced to plaintiffs and except for wholly irrelevant email such as personal employee email.
United States v. Two Bank Accounts, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57338 (D.S.D. July 2, 2008).
A contestant appearing pro se to claim funds in a government forfeiture proceeding was provided with a copy of federal rules of civil procedure related to discovery and ordered to produce his computers for government inspection rather than hard drive mirror images made by a third party.
A contestant appearing pro se to claim funds in a government forfeiture proceeding was provided with a copy of federal rules of civil procedure related to discovery and ordered to produce his computers for government inspection rather than hard drive mirror images made by a third party.
United States v. Painting, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49171 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2008).
Assertions of law enforcement privilege for government email were rejected by the court. Agency heads had not made an official claim of privilege, and an unofficial claim of law enforcement privilege by government counsel did not meet the requirement that the privilege had to be asserted by executive level officials of the department having control over the email.
Assertions of law enforcement privilege for government email were rejected by the court. Agency heads had not made an official claim of privilege, and an unofficial claim of law enforcement privilege by government counsel did not meet the requirement that the privilege had to be asserted by executive level officials of the department having control over the email.
Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. S.A.M., Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47712 (E.D. La. June 20, 2008).
Plaintiff was granted its attorney fees and costs in seeking information from third parties that defendant company could have provided directly, and the company was ordered to hire a computer forensics expert to examine its server for responsive documents to produce to plaintiff.
Plaintiff was granted its attorney fees and costs in seeking information from third parties that defendant company could have provided directly, and the company was ordered to hire a computer forensics expert to examine its server for responsive documents to produce to plaintiff.
Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46605 (W.D. Pa. June 16, 2008).
In response to plaintiff’s objection to a rolling production, defendant was ordered to produce all overdue non-privileged and responsive documents and electronically stored information within just over a month.
In response to plaintiff’s objection to a rolling production, defendant was ordered to produce all overdue non-privileged and responsive documents and electronically stored information within just over a month.
London v. Does, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 11428 (9th Cir. May 22, 2008).
A third party subpoena to an email service provider was permitted in a divorce and child custody action because the subpoena sought identity of the user of email accounts but not the actual email to and from the user.
A third party subpoena to an email service provider was permitted in a divorce and child custody action because the subpoena sought identity of the user of email accounts but not the actual email to and from the user.
Regan-Touhy v. Walgreen Co., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 10704 (10th Cir. May 20, 2008).
A federal court of appeals encouraged district courts to analyze the costs and benefits of sweeping discovery requests in order to avoid displacement of trial on the merits by collateral discovery disputes.
A federal court of appeals encouraged district courts to analyze the costs and benefits of sweeping discovery requests in order to avoid displacement of trial on the merits by collateral discovery disputes.
Brown v. Chertoff, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39569 (S.D. Ga. May 14, 2008).
A plaintiff’s discovery definitions in a prior administrative proceeding that did not include electronically stored information had no significance in a subsequent federal court action in which Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 requests for production of documents were understood to include electronically stored information.
A plaintiff’s discovery definitions in a prior administrative proceeding that did not include electronically stored information had no significance in a subsequent federal court action in which Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 requests for production of documents were understood to include electronically stored information.
Binary Semantics Ltd. v. Minitab, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36566 (M.D. Pa. May 5, 2008).
Defendant’s request for images of plaintiff’s servers and employee computers to check the validity of electronic data provided by plaintiff during discovery was granted only to the extent of allowing images of protected folders on one server containing the information that had been provided by plaintiff.
Defendant’s request for images of plaintiff’s servers and employee computers to check the validity of electronic data provided by plaintiff during discovery was granted only to the extent of allowing images of protected folders on one server containing the information that had been provided by plaintiff.
Petersen v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35721 (C.D. Ill. May 1, 2008).
Failure of plaintiffs to request discovery relating to the meaning of a data readout until after the close of discovery led the court to deny the discovery request and to consider imposing costs on plaintiffs.
Failure of plaintiffs to request discovery relating to the meaning of a data readout until after the close of discovery led the court to deny the discovery request and to consider imposing costs on plaintiffs.
Arista Records LLC v. Doe, "Doe l", 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34405 (D.D.C. Apr. 28, 2008).
The need of recording companies in a copyright infringement action for identification of file-sharing internet users sought through a Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoena outweighed any First Amendment rights of the users. Those rights were “exceedingly small” when the “speech” involved was alleged infringement of copyrighted materials.
The need of recording companies in a copyright infringement action for identification of file-sharing internet users sought through a Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoena outweighed any First Amendment rights of the users. Those rights were “exceedingly small” when the “speech” involved was alleged infringement of copyrighted materials.
In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to AOL, LLC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39349 (E.D. Va. Apr. 18, 2008).
The Privacy Act prohibited an email service provider from producing customer email in response to an insurer’s subpoena because a civil discovery subpoena was not a disclosure exception under the Act.
The Privacy Act prohibited an email service provider from producing customer email in response to an insurer’s subpoena because a civil discovery subpoena was not a disclosure exception under the Act.
Interscope Records v. Does, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30026 (D. Kan. Apr. 11, 2008).
Motions of “Doe” defendants to quash Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoenas from record companies to defendants’ university seeking information identifying the defendants were denied. The defendants “had little expectation of privacy because they opened their computers to others through peer-to-peer file sharing.”
Motions of “Doe” defendants to quash Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoenas from record companies to defendants’ university seeking information identifying the defendants were denied. The defendants “had little expectation of privacy because they opened their computers to others through peer-to-peer file sharing.”
Alexander v. FBI, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27153 (D.D.C. Apr. 3, 2008).
Errors by the White House Counsel’s office in failing to appreciate the significance of information provided by their computer expert “occurred long before development of current sophisticated ways that lawyers have had to learn to deal with computer experts,” and failure to disclose that not all White House email had been captured and retained in a searchable system was not evidence of obstruction of justice or of deliberately providing false information to the court.
Errors by the White House Counsel’s office in failing to appreciate the significance of information provided by their computer expert “occurred long before development of current sophisticated ways that lawyers have had to learn to deal with computer experts,” and failure to disclose that not all White House email had been captured and retained in a searchable system was not evidence of obstruction of justice or of deliberately providing false information to the court.
London-Sire Records, Inc. v. Doe 1, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38817 (D. Mass. Mar. 31, 2008).
Responses to record company Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoenas to a university were halted pending the court’s review of student identities that would be disclosed and review of university ISP service agreements to determine student privacy expectations. The court concluded that students sharing copyrighted music at least deserved minimal First Amendment protection and that it was possible the subpoenas might also invade anonymity of many non-infringing students.
Responses to record company Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoenas to a university were halted pending the court’s review of student identities that would be disclosed and review of university ISP service agreements to determine student privacy expectations. The court concluded that students sharing copyrighted music at least deserved minimal First Amendment protection and that it was possible the subpoenas might also invade anonymity of many non-infringing students.
Baker v. Gerould, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28628 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2008).
Before requiring defendant to restore deleted electronic communications, the court ordered plaintiff to depose a representative of defendant concerning defendant’s search for such communications that were accessible. The court could then determine whether a further search of other sources that were not reasonably accessible remained necessary within the meaning of Advisory Committee notes to the 2006 amendments to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2).
Before requiring defendant to restore deleted electronic communications, the court ordered plaintiff to depose a representative of defendant concerning defendant’s search for such communications that were accessible. The court could then determine whether a further search of other sources that were not reasonably accessible remained necessary within the meaning of Advisory Committee notes to the 2006 amendments to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2).
Flagg v. City of Detroit, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21923 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 20, 2008).
Defendants’ motion to quash plaintiff’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoenas to a text messaging service used by defendants was denied. The burdensomeness argument of defendants was rejected because the service acknowledged it was prepared to comply with the subpoenas.
Defendants’ motion to quash plaintiff’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoenas to a text messaging service used by defendants was denied. The burdensomeness argument of defendants was rejected because the service acknowledged it was prepared to comply with the subpoenas.
Baird v. Department of the Army, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 4070 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 26, 2008).
An administrative board's decision was remanded because discovery in the middle of the administrative hearing should have been allowed for email that the government failed to provide earlier pursuant to 5 C.F.R. ő 1201.73(c)(1).
An administrative board's decision was remanded because discovery in the middle of the administrative hearing should have been allowed for email that the government failed to provide earlier pursuant to 5 C.F.R. ő 1201.73(c)(1).
Petcou v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13723 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 25, 2008).
Defendant met its burden pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B) to show that deleted email was not reasonably accessible because the cost of retrieving about two years' worth of email for just one employee was about $79,300. The court ordered only production of email that was unlikely to cause undue burden and decided that a search of backup tapes would not be required.
Defendant met its burden pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B) to show that deleted email was not reasonably accessible because the cost of retrieving about two years' worth of email for just one employee was about $79,300. The court ordered only production of email that was unlikely to cause undue burden and decided that a search of backup tapes would not be required.
Simon Property Group, Inc. v. Taubman Centers, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5065 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 24, 2008).
A non-party that objected to a subpoena that would require three employees to search servers for four weeks waived its objection by failing to object within the time allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B). However, the court ordered the parties to make a good faith attempt to narrow the scope of the subpoena.
A non-party that objected to a subpoena that would require three employees to search servers for four weeks waived its objection by failing to object within the time allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B). However, the court ordered the parties to make a good faith attempt to narrow the scope of the subpoena.
In re Honza, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 20 (Tex. Ct. App. Jan. 2, 2008).
In a matter of first impression, a Texas appellate court adopted what it termed an emerging and fairly uniform approach of state and federal decisions concerning access to an opponent's hard drives. The court allowed imaging of hard drives to proceed for the limited purpose of searching for particular documents with metadata in order to determine when modifications to the documents were made.
In a matter of first impression, a Texas appellate court adopted what it termed an emerging and fairly uniform approach of state and federal decisions concerning access to an opponent's hard drives. The court allowed imaging of hard drives to proceed for the limited purpose of searching for particular documents with metadata in order to determine when modifications to the documents were made.
Kellogg v. Nike, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95629 (D. Neb. Dec. 26, 2007).
Disclosure by defendants at a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of their policy for retention of electronic documents led the court to deny plaintiff's request for further disclosure pursuant to Rule 26(f)(3) of responsive information concerning electronically stored information.
Disclosure by defendants at a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of their policy for retention of electronic documents led the court to deny plaintiff's request for further disclosure pursuant to Rule 26(f)(3) of responsive information concerning electronically stored information.
Arista Records, Inc. v. Does 1 - 4, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85652 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 20, 2007).
After noting pending changes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) allowing discovery by court order prior to a Rule 26 hearing, a court allowed third party discovery that required a university to disclose identities of four persons using university internet protocol addresses to share copyrighted music.
After noting pending changes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) allowing discovery by court order prior to a Rule 26 hearing, a court allowed third party discovery that required a university to disclose identities of four persons using university internet protocol addresses to share copyrighted music.
Garcia v. Berkshire Life Insurance Company of America, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86639 (D. Colo. Nov. 13, 2007).
Plaintiff's counsel was obligated to seek computer-knowledgeable assistance to learn the true contents of a DVD containing plaintiff's email once defense counsel pointed out that over 4,000 email documents on the DVD had not been included in plaintiff's hard copy production.
Plaintiff's counsel was obligated to seek computer-knowledgeable assistance to learn the true contents of a DVD containing plaintiff's email once defense counsel pointed out that over 4,000 email documents on the DVD had not been included in plaintiff's hard copy production.
Vaughn v. City of Puyallup, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84380 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 6, 2007).
Although defendant was under a duty to produce all relevant documents, there was no authority to require defendant "to conduct and document a reasonably comprehensive search of its electronic data such that 'it is comprehensible to Plaintiff.'"
Although defendant was under a duty to produce all relevant documents, there was no authority to require defendant "to conduct and document a reasonably comprehensive search of its electronic data such that 'it is comprehensible to Plaintiff.'"
Christian v. Central Record Service, "Christian II", 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80027 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 19, 2007).
Although defendant deleted responsive email from its computer system, the court declined to order defendant to produce existing hard copies of the deleted email. The copies had been filed in an unknown number of boxes within several hundred thousand boxes stored by defendant and searching for the hard copies would be unduly burdensome.
Although defendant deleted responsive email from its computer system, the court declined to order defendant to produce existing hard copies of the deleted email. The copies had been filed in an unknown number of boxes within several hundred thousand boxes stored by defendant and searching for the hard copies would be unduly burdensome.
Interscope Records v. Doe, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73627 (D. Kan. Oct. 1, 2007).
An ex parte application to issue a subpoena to a university to determine who used the university's computers to share music files was granted because logs could be erased within days and nothing in recent changes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 prohibited such an ex parte subpoena.
An ex parte application to issue a subpoena to a university to determine who used the university's computers to share music files was granted because logs could be erased within days and nothing in recent changes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 prohibited such an ex parte subpoena.
Laface Records, LLC v. Does 1-5, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72225 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 27, 2007).
Due to privacy concerns, a court that granted leave to music copyright holders to conduct third-party discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) discovery conference held that the third party internet service provider and the "Doe" defendants should have an opportunity to modify or quash the subpoena to the ISP.
Due to privacy concerns, a court that granted leave to music copyright holders to conduct third-party discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) discovery conference held that the third party internet service provider and the "Doe" defendants should have an opportunity to modify or quash the subpoena to the ISP.
Christian v. Central Record Service, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67546 (W.D. Ark. Sept. 11, 2007).
Based on defense counsel's statement to plaintiff that her email while employed by defendant no longer existed and that retrieval of deleted email did not appear possible, the court concluded that defendant had complied with plaintiff's request to defendant for production of the email.
Based on defense counsel's statement to plaintiff that her email while employed by defendant no longer existed and that retrieval of deleted email did not appear possible, the court concluded that defendant had complied with plaintiff's request to defendant for production of the email.
Tomlinson v. El Paso Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64783 (D. Colo. Aug. 31, 2007).
Defendants were ordered to produce data on benefits records held by a third party because defendants could not delegate their duty under ERISA to maintain the data. Defendants thus were or should be in possession, custody or control of the data within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B).
Defendants were ordered to produce data on benefits records held by a third party because defendants could not delegate their duty under ERISA to maintain the data. Defendants thus were or should be in possession, custody or control of the data within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B).
Butler v. Kmart Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61141 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 20, 2007).
Defendant's failure to describe efforts to search for electronically stored information led the court to order a thorough search by defendant of its computer systems. However, the court denied open access to defendant's systems by plaintiff's expert because Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a) did not give a requesting party the right to search the responding party's records.
Defendant's failure to describe efforts to search for electronically stored information led the court to order a thorough search by defendant of its computer systems. However, the court denied open access to defendant's systems by plaintiff's expert because Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a) did not give a requesting party the right to search the responding party's records.
Hardin v. Belmont Textile Machinery Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57937 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 7, 2007).
Defendant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoena for home computers of plaintiff was enforced subject to a protective order for plaintiff's personal, non-business information on the computers.
Defendant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoena for home computers of plaintiff was enforced subject to a protective order for plaintiff's personal, non-business information on the computers.
Flying J Inc. v. TA Operating Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55574 (D. Utah Jul. 30, 2007).
Plaintiffs who were willing to produce documents and deposition transcripts from databases prepared in other litigation were not required to produce the actual databases.
Plaintiffs who were willing to produce documents and deposition transcripts from databases prepared in other litigation were not required to produce the actual databases.
Matter of Maura, 2007 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5363 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. June 28, 2007).
Although not parties to the litigation, a lawyer and his law firm were ordered to have their expert - at the requesting party's expense -- clone a law firm hard drive and produce hard copies of billing and other records from the hard drive concerning a premarital agreement prepared by the lawyer.
Although not parties to the litigation, a lawyer and his law firm were ordered to have their expert - at the requesting party's expense -- clone a law firm hard drive and produce hard copies of billing and other records from the hard drive concerning a premarital agreement prepared by the lawyer.
National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Clearwater Ins. Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52770 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 21, 2007).
The cost of up to $80,000 to restore back-up tapes to find email relating to a reinsurance settlement outweighed likely benefits of the discovery because the tapes were for time periods from 7 to 22 months after the settlement. The electronically stored information thus was not reasonably accessible within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2), and plaintiff did not have to restore the back-up tapes.
The cost of up to $80,000 to restore back-up tapes to find email relating to a reinsurance settlement outweighed likely benefits of the discovery because the tapes were for time periods from 7 to 22 months after the settlement. The electronically stored information thus was not reasonably accessible within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2), and plaintiff did not have to restore the back-up tapes.
Heartland Surgical Specialty Hospital, LLC v. Midwest Division, Inc., "Heartland III", 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53217 (D. Kan. Jul. 20, 2007.
Doctors who founded a hospital were not required to search their personal email in responding to third party subpoenas from defendants in the hospital's action because such personal email was unlikely to contain documents responsive to the subpoenas and email of the doctors on their hospital's server had been produced.
Doctors who founded a hospital were not required to search their personal email in responding to third party subpoenas from defendants in the hospital's action because such personal email was unlikely to contain documents responsive to the subpoenas and email of the doctors on their hospital's server had been produced.
Michigan First Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Society Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49166 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 9, 2007).
Following the recent amendment of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a) designed to include electronically stored information, defendant was required to produce documents not produced in response to three earlier document requests that fell within a revised definition of "document" provided by plaintiff.
Following the recent amendment of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a) designed to include electronically stored information, defendant was required to produce documents not produced in response to three earlier document requests that fell within a revised definition of "document" provided by plaintiff.
Asis Internet Servs. v. Optin Global, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50621 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2007).
Letters rogatory for deposing a non-party Canadian company were denied because the discovery request was not supported by any evidence linking the Canadian company with defendant other than a listing as "partners in spam."
Letters rogatory for deposing a non-party Canadian company were denied because the discovery request was not supported by any evidence linking the Canadian company with defendant other than a listing as "partners in spam."
Puckett v. Tandem Staffing Solutions, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47287 (N.D. Ill. June 27, 2007).
Defendant was ordered to restore backup tapes despite having produced hard copies of documents on the backup tapes because defendant's usual course of business was to maintain documents in their electronic format.
Defendant was ordered to restore backup tapes despite having produced hard copies of documents on the backup tapes because defendant's usual course of business was to maintain documents in their electronic format.
Wimsatt v. Superior Court, 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 996 (Cal. Ct. App. June 18, 2007).
A trial court was directed to issue a protective order maintaining confidentiality of mediation briefs and email concerning the mediation. There was no exception to a statute requiring confidentiality of mediation documents even if the documents allegedly contained evidence of perjury or inconsistent statements.
A trial court was directed to issue a protective order maintaining confidentiality of mediation briefs and email concerning the mediation. There was no exception to a statute requiring confidentiality of mediation documents even if the documents allegedly contained evidence of perjury or inconsistent statements.
Warshak v. United States, "Warshak I", 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 14297 (6th Cir. June 18, 2007).
Using an internet service provider to send and receive email did not lessen individuals' privacy expectations for their email, according to a court of appeals. The government was prohibited from seizing contents of personal email accounts from internet service providers without first giving notice to the email account holder or showing with specific facts that the account holder had no expectation of privacy in the contents of the account.
Using an internet service provider to send and receive email did not lessen individuals' privacy expectations for their email, according to a court of appeals. The government was prohibited from seizing contents of personal email accounts from internet service providers without first giving notice to the email account holder or showing with specific facts that the account holder had no expectation of privacy in the contents of the account.
Warner Bros. Records, Inc. v. Does, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41175 (D. Colo. June 6, 2007).
An ex parte application of recording companies for permission to subpoena subscriber activity log files from an internet service provider was granted because such logs, which contained identifying information on individuals sharing copyrighted recordings, typically were kept for only a short period of time.
An ex parte application of recording companies for permission to subpoena subscriber activity log files from an internet service provider was granted because such logs, which contained identifying information on individuals sharing copyrighted recordings, typically were kept for only a short period of time.
Williams v. Taser International, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40280 (N.D. Ga. June 4, 2007).
Parties that could not agree on an electronic discovery protocol were given a detailed order with specific terms to use in searching a defendant's databases to find presumptively responsive documents to be produced within thirty days. Presumptively privileged documents had to be produced (subject to a "clawback" provision) or listed on a privilege log within 45 days of the order.
Parties that could not agree on an electronic discovery protocol were given a detailed order with specific terms to use in searching a defendant's databases to find presumptively responsive documents to be produced within thirty days. Presumptively privileged documents had to be produced (subject to a "clawback" provision) or listed on a privilege log within 45 days of the order.
Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39605 (D.D.C. June 1, 2007).
After weighing Advisory Committee factors under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B ), the court ordered restoration and searches of defendant's backup tapes because defendant had failed to put a litigation hold on a program that automatically purged email every sixty days during the three years after the complaint in the action was filed. The court directed the parties to prepare a stipulated protocol for a search of backup tapes with attention to "concept searching" rather than less efficient "keyword searching."
After weighing Advisory Committee factors under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B ), the court ordered restoration and searches of defendant's backup tapes because defendant had failed to put a litigation hold on a program that automatically purged email every sixty days during the three years after the complaint in the action was filed. The court directed the parties to prepare a stipulated protocol for a search of backup tapes with attention to "concept searching" rather than less efficient "keyword searching."
Calyon v. Mizuho Secs. USA Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36961 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2007).
After a review of decisions considering recently-amended Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a), the court held that a plaintiff's general assertion that its computer forensics expert was more motivated than defendants' expert did not entitle plaintiff to carte blanche access to mirror images of hard drives on defendants' personal computers.
After a review of decisions considering recently-amended Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a), the court held that a plaintiff's general assertion that its computer forensics expert was more motivated than defendants' expert did not entitle plaintiff to carte blanche access to mirror images of hard drives on defendants' personal computers.
Oklahoma ex rel. Edmondson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36308 (N.D. Okla. May 17, 2007).
Parties in a federal action in Oklahoma were directed to follow Guidelines for the Discovery of Electronic Stored Information for the District of Kansas pending adoption of local rules or guidelines in the District of Oklahoma for electronic discovery.
Parties in a federal action in Oklahoma were directed to follow Guidelines for the Discovery of Electronic Stored Information for the District of Kansas pending adoption of local rules or guidelines in the District of Oklahoma for electronic discovery.
Williams v. Armstrong, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35045 (W.D. Mich. May 14, 2007).
A magistrate judge's order denying a motion to compel production of email by a corrections official who denied having any responsive email was remanded for further consideration. An email exhibit to plaintiff's motion to compel suggested that the corrections official may have had responsive email on his workstation computer.
A magistrate judge's order denying a motion to compel production of email by a corrections official who denied having any responsive email was remanded for further consideration. An email exhibit to plaintiff's motion to compel suggested that the corrections official may have had responsive email on his workstation computer.
United Co. v. Keenan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38853 (W.D. Va. May 11, 2007).
A magistrate judge recommended denial of plaintiff's second motion to amend its complaint to add a breach of fiduciary claim against plaintiff's former president based on a recently-found email by the former president. The email had been on the company's server since before the company filed its original action against its former president, and the email should have been produced earlier during discovery.
A magistrate judge recommended denial of plaintiff's second motion to amend its complaint to add a breach of fiduciary claim against plaintiff's former president based on a recently-found email by the former president. The email had been on the company's server since before the company filed its original action against its former president, and the email should have been produced earlier during discovery.
Rebman v. Follet Higher Education Group, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32601 (M.D. Fla. May 3, 2007).
A motion to compel a further response to a discovery request that would require defendant to create a special software program to search over 200 million sales transactions was denied due to burdensomeness of the request. However, the court referred to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and ordered the parties to confer over a more narrow request and to discuss costs of production.
A motion to compel a further response to a discovery request that would require defendant to create a special software program to search over 200 million sales transactions was denied due to burdensomeness of the request. However, the court referred to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and ordered the parties to confer over a more narrow request and to discuss costs of production.
O'Bar v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32497 (W.D.N.C. May 2, 2007).
In anticipation of electronic discovery disputes between plaintiffs and defendant, a U.S. District Court in North Carolina ordered the parties to prepare a detailed pre-class certification discovery plan under Rule 26(f) while following a proposed electronic discovery protocol from the District of Maryland.
In anticipation of electronic discovery disputes between plaintiffs and defendant, a U.S. District Court in North Carolina ordered the parties to prepare a detailed pre-class certification discovery plan under Rule 26(f) while following a proposed electronic discovery protocol from the District of Maryland.
Oxford House, Inc. v. City of Topeka, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31731 (D. Kan. Apr. 27, 2007).
The court denied a motion to compel further production that would have required spending up to $100,000 to search backup tapes on which responsive email was likely to have been overwritten and was no longer recoverable.
The court denied a motion to compel further production that would have required spending up to $100,000 to search backup tapes on which responsive email was likely to have been overwritten and was no longer recoverable.
Horowitch v. Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29626 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2007).
A defendant who responded that its electronic records were located at an address where it had access to the records was ordered to immediately provide plaintiff with information relating to electronic discovery issues and to confer with plaintiff while accompanied by persons capable of answering all technical questions regarding electronic discovery.
A defendant who responded that its electronic records were located at an address where it had access to the records was ordered to immediately provide plaintiff with information relating to electronic discovery issues and to confer with plaintiff while accompanied by persons capable of answering all technical questions regarding electronic discovery.
Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., "Wachtel II", 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26308 (D.N.J. Apr. 10, 2007).
A stay pending review of discovery orders was denied because defendants' assertions that the orders would require restoration and review of the equivalent of 14 billion documents were made "on purely conclusory terms, with utterly no explanation."
A stay pending review of discovery orders was denied because defendants' assertions that the orders would require restoration and review of the equivalent of 14 billion documents were made "on purely conclusory terms, with utterly no explanation."
Heartland Surgical Specialty Hospital, LLC v. Midwest Division, Inc., "Heartland II", 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26552 (D. Kan. Apr. 9, 2007).
Plaintiff failed to provide an adequately prepared Rule 30(b)(6) witness with knowledge of plaintiff's production of data when it produced its chief executive officer. The CEO could not answer questions about computer servers, document retention policies, and plaintiff's ediscovery vendor.
Plaintiff failed to provide an adequately prepared Rule 30(b)(6) witness with knowledge of plaintiff's production of data when it produced its chief executive officer. The CEO could not answer questions about computer servers, document retention policies, and plaintiff's ediscovery vendor.
Bolton v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16814 (D. Kan. Mar. 8, 2007).
Plaintiffs were entitled to company-wide statistical information in an age-discrimination case. The fact that there were only 13 plaintiffs asking for the information that had been obtained from defendant in cases with over 460 plaintiffs and over 1700 plaintiffs did not affect the relevance of the requested information.
Plaintiffs were entitled to company-wide statistical information in an age-discrimination case. The fact that there were only 13 plaintiffs asking for the information that had been obtained from defendant in cases with over 460 plaintiffs and over 1700 plaintiffs did not affect the relevance of the requested information.
Ispat Inland, Inc. v. Kemper Environmental, Ltd., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16718 (D. Minn. Mar. 8, 2007).
A non-party that objected to a subpoena for documents and electronically stored information on the grounds of undue burden and privilege was ordered to produce the documents because the non-party made only a general objection and failed to follow up with a privilege log.
A non-party that objected to a subpoena for documents and electronically stored information on the grounds of undue burden and privilege was ordered to produce the documents because the non-party made only a general objection and failed to follow up with a privilege log.
Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, "Frees II", 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15508 (D. Tenn. Mar. 5, 2007).
After finding striking similarities between CAD files of plaintiff and CAD files of a third party, the court permitted plaintiff to seek a "second tier" of discovery from the third party while forensic imaging of the third party's computers (at plaintiff's cost) proceeded.
After finding striking similarities between CAD files of plaintiff and CAD files of a third party, the court permitted plaintiff to seek a "second tier" of discovery from the third party while forensic imaging of the third party's computers (at plaintiff's cost) proceeded.
Ameriwood Industries, Inc. v. Liberman, "Ameriwood II", 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10791 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 12, 2007).
Under recently amended Rule 26(b)(2)(B), the court held that information sought in a request for production of documents was not reasonably accessible because the request was unduly burdensome. The court denied defendants' motion to compel production because they failed to show good cause for production through narrow tailoring of their request.
Under recently amended Rule 26(b)(2)(B), the court held that information sought in a request for production of documents was not reasonably accessible because the request was unduly burdensome. The court denied defendants' motion to compel production because they failed to show good cause for production through narrow tailoring of their request.
Stanziale v. Pepper Hamilton LLP, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11320 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2007).
A law firm's motion to compel a technology consulting firm to produce electronic data in response to a subpoena was transferred to the district in which the underlying action was pending.
A law firm's motion to compel a technology consulting firm to produce electronic data in response to a subpoena was transferred to the district in which the underlying action was pending.
Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Developers Diversified Realty Corporation, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7580 (D. Minn. Feb. 1, 2007).
A magistrate's order granting plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents within a month of the order was affirmed despite defendants' objection over two weeks after the order that technological restraints made compliance with the deadline impossible. The magistrate found that defendants offered no proof beyond conclusory statements about costs to retrieve documents from electronic archives and thus had not met their burden under recently-amended Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B) to show that electronic information was not reasonably available.
A magistrate's order granting plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents within a month of the order was affirmed despite defendants' objection over two weeks after the order that technological restraints made compliance with the deadline impossible. The magistrate found that defendants offered no proof beyond conclusory statements about costs to retrieve documents from electronic archives and thus had not met their burden under recently-amended Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B) to show that electronic information was not reasonably available.
Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4343 (W.D. La. Jan. 22, 2007).
A laptop computer provided to plaintiff's former employee by plaintiff's competitor two years after the employee left plaintiff was ordered turned over for inspection by plaintiff. The former employee was also ordered to turn over a personal computer hard drive for inspection. The court agreed with plaintiff that the laptop and the hard drive were the most likely places to find data "pilfered" from plaintiff.
A laptop computer provided to plaintiff's former employee by plaintiff's competitor two years after the employee left plaintiff was ordered turned over for inspection by plaintiff. The former employee was also ordered to turn over a personal computer hard drive for inspection. The court agreed with plaintiff that the laptop and the hard drive were the most likely places to find data "pilfered" from plaintiff.
Mackelprang v. Fidelity National Title Agency of Nevada, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2379 (D. Nev. Jan. 9, 2007).
Defendant's motion to compel plaintiff to consent to a service provider's release of email communications in two accounts attributed to plaintiff was denied.
Defendant's motion to compel plaintiff to consent to a service provider's release of email communications in two accounts attributed to plaintiff was denied.
United States v. N.Y. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93920 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2006).
Production of email messages had to include non-privileged attachments to the messages.
Production of email messages had to include non-privileged attachments to the messages.
Exact Software North America, Inc. v. Infocon, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87837 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 5, 2006).
A party's difficulty in producing e-discovery due to "defects" in key search words from the opposing party was not a valid excuse for failing to respond to the discovery. Clarification of the key words should have been sought.
A party's difficulty in producing e-discovery due to "defects" in key search words from the opposing party was not a valid excuse for failing to respond to the discovery. Clarification of the key words should have been sought.
Advante International Corp. v. Mintel Learning Technology,, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86334 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2006).
Defendant's third attempt in a trade secret action to obtain the right to image plaintiff's hard drives was successful following disclosure of evidence that email documents of plaintiff had been altered.
Defendant's third attempt in a trade secret action to obtain the right to image plaintiff's hard drives was successful following disclosure of evidence that email documents of plaintiff had been altered.
Reino de Espana v. American Bureau of Shipping, "Reino II", 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81415 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2006).
Defendants in an action by Spain to recover oil spill costs were invited to seek sanctions against Spain for failing to preserve government agency documents.
Defendants in an action by Spain to recover oil spill costs were invited to seek sanctions against Spain for failing to preserve government agency documents.
JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Winnick, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80202 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2006).
A third-party bank that assigned claims that later became the subject of litigation should have anticipated the cost of responding to discovery in the litigation. The third party had to bear that cost because it was foreseeable that the purchasers of the bank's claims would sue to collect and that the defendants in turn would seek third-party discovery from the bank.
A third-party bank that assigned claims that later became the subject of litigation should have anticipated the cost of responding to discovery in the litigation. The third party had to bear that cost because it was foreseeable that the purchasers of the bank's claims would sue to collect and that the defendants in turn would seek third-party discovery from the bank.
Westcoat v. Bayer CropScience LP, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79756 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 1, 2006).
An agreed order regarding document preservation included definitions of different elements of electronic data systems and provisions for capturing and preserving electronic data in native format. A copy of the order can be found in the Model Orders and Sample Documents section of the ADI Library.
An agreed order regarding document preservation included definitions of different elements of electronic data systems and provisions for capturing and preserving electronic data in native format. A copy of the order can be found in the Model Orders and Sample Documents section of the ADI Library.
Bank of America Corp. v. SR International Business Ins. Co., 2006 NCBC LEXIS 17 (N.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 1, 2006).
A third party insurance broker for plaintiffs in an insurance coverage dispute was excused from having to respond to a subpoena requiring production of deleted email on the third party's backup tapes due to the significant burden and prematurity of the requested production.
A third party insurance broker for plaintiffs in an insurance coverage dispute was excused from having to respond to a subpoena requiring production of deleted email on the third party's backup tapes due to the significant burden and prematurity of the requested production.
Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Arellanes, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78399 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 27, 2006).
In response to defendant's suggestion, the court ordered appointment of a neutral computer forensics expert to inspect and copy the hard drive on defendant's computer in order to protect privacy of matters unrelated to the lawsuit.
In response to defendant's suggestion, the court ordered appointment of a neutral computer forensics expert to inspect and copy the hard drive on defendant's computer in order to protect privacy of matters unrelated to the lawsuit.
People v. Rutter, 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1609 (Cal. App. Oct. 16, 2006).
Defendant's perjury conviction was upheld despite his not being provided with a report from a computer consultant for the prosecution until the Friday before a Tuesday trial date. The report on contents of defendant's computers was given to defendant on the day after the prosecution received it, and defendant had access to his computers for the prior two years.
Defendant's perjury conviction was upheld despite his not being provided with a report from a computer consultant for the prosecution until the Friday before a Tuesday trial date. The report on contents of defendant's computers was given to defendant on the day after the prosecution received it, and defendant had access to his computers for the prior two years.
Pritchard v. County of Erie, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74356 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2006).
Plaintiffs' request for court supervision of a deposition of a former attorney for defendants was denied despite indications the former attorney would be instructed not to answer questions regarding her thought processes in sending email to defendants.
Plaintiffs' request for court supervision of a deposition of a former attorney for defendants was denied despite indications the former attorney would be instructed not to answer questions regarding her thought processes in sending email to defendants.
Jordan v. Dillard's, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72898 (D. Kan. Oct. 5, 2006).
In a civil rights action against an employer, plaintiff former employee was ordered to produce email with her daughter concerning her employment with defendant. However, defendant's request for production of the former employee's hard drive for inspection was denied because no justification had been provided for the broad and invasive request.
In a civil rights action against an employer, plaintiff former employee was ordered to produce email with her daughter concerning her employment with defendant. However, defendant's request for production of the former employee's hard drive for inspection was denied because no justification had been provided for the broad and invasive request.
University of Pittsburgh v. Townsend, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72523 (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 4, 2006).
Email and other communications of plaintiff's testifying expert to and from counsel had to be disclosed due to the bright line rule of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 even though defendants had objected similarly to plaintiff to disclosing communications of their testifying expert.
Email and other communications of plaintiff's testifying expert to and from counsel had to be disclosed due to the bright line rule of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 even though defendants had objected similarly to plaintiff to disclosing communications of their testifying expert.
United States v. Arnold, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73311 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2006).
While it was appropriate to x-ray or turn on a traveler's laptop or other device at a customs checkpoint, a search of information on the computer without reasonable suspicion was impermissible under the Fourth Amendment.
While it was appropriate to x-ray or turn on a traveler's laptop or other device at a customs checkpoint, a search of information on the computer without reasonable suspicion was impermissible under the Fourth Amendment.
Krumwiede v. Brighton Associates, L.L.C.,, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70535 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 12, 2006).
Use of documents from plaintiff's laptop by defendant as exhibits in a separate arbitration proceeding did not violate a protective order because plaintiff had not properly designated the documents as confidential and thus had waived the ability to claim the documents were covered by the protective order.
Use of documents from plaintiff's laptop by defendant as exhibits in a separate arbitration proceeding did not violate a protective order because plaintiff had not properly designated the documents as confidential and thus had waived the ability to claim the documents were covered by the protective order.
Friedman v. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, 2006 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7588 (Cal. App. Aug. 29, 2006).
Document requests served with subpoenas to third parties that were estimated to require review of one million email documents at a cost of $1.4 million were overbroad, and trial court orders compelling production were set aside because they were based on an unrealistic estimate that the review would take only ten hours.
Document requests served with subpoenas to third parties that were estimated to require review of one million email documents at a cost of $1.4 million were overbroad, and trial court orders compelling production were set aside because they were based on an unrealistic estimate that the review would take only ten hours.
In re CV Therapeutics, Inc., Securities Litigation,, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63155 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2006).
Defendants' de-duplication of over 400,000 documents on belatedly discovered backup drives and application of search terms to the remaining 125,000 documents was permitted as a balance between plaintiff's needs and defendants' burden.
Defendants' de-duplication of over 400,000 documents on belatedly discovered backup drives and application of search terms to the remaining 125,000 documents was permitted as a balance between plaintiff's needs and defendants' burden.
United States v. Hudspeth, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 21664 (8th Cir. Aug. 15, 2006).
A search warrant for business records that did not include "computer" as a location to search was sufficiently definite to support search and seizure of a business computer. However, a warrantless search and seizure of defendant's home computer following permission from his wife was not permissible because defendant earlier had denied consent.
A search warrant for business records that did not include "computer" as a location to search was sufficiently definite to support search and seizure of a business computer. However, a warrantless search and seizure of defendant's home computer following permission from his wife was not permissible because defendant earlier had denied consent.
First National of Nebraska, Inc. v. John Does 1-5, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53881 (D. Neb. Jul. 26, 2006).
By ex parte order, a bank was granted permission to conduct immediate discovery of internet service provider accounts in order to learn the identities of "John Doe" defendants engaged in a "phising" scam.
By ex parte order, a bank was granted permission to conduct immediate discovery of internet service provider accounts in order to learn the identities of "John Doe" defendants engaged in a "phising" scam.
United States v. Romm, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 18474 (9th Cir. Jul. 24, 2006).
A search of the hard drive on defendant's laptop for deleted illegal photographs was permissible without a warrant or probable cause under the border search doctrine. Defendant's argument that the search intruded too much on his First Amendment rights to be considered a "routine" border search was not considered by the court because defendant raised the argument for the first time in his reply brief.
A search of the hard drive on defendant's laptop for deleted illegal photographs was permissible without a warrant or probable cause under the border search doctrine. Defendant's argument that the search intruded too much on his First Amendment rights to be considered a "routine" border search was not considered by the court because defendant raised the argument for the first time in his reply brief.
Petersen v. Union Pacific R.R., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49921 (C.D. Ill. Jul. 21, 2006).
A copy of a railroad's document retention and destruction policy as it existed before and after an accident was "clearly relevant" and had to be produced.
A copy of a railroad's document retention and destruction policy as it existed before and after an accident was "clearly relevant" and had to be produced.
Trammell v. Anderson College, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48775 (D. S.C. Jul. 17, 2006).
A subpoena of records of a media scan of a plaintiff's computer by a third party consultant for defendant was quashed because plaintiffs had not shown the scan had altered the computer or that plaintiffs could not obtain the same scan on their own without undue burden or cost.
A subpoena of records of a media scan of a plaintiff's computer by a third party consultant for defendant was quashed because plaintiffs had not shown the scan had altered the computer or that plaintiffs could not obtain the same scan on their own without undue burden or cost.
Peskoff v. Faber, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46372 (D.D.C. Jul. 11, 2006).
In light of defendant's inability to account for a two-year gap in emails produced to plaintiff in response to a document demand, the court ordered defendant to create a detailed affidavit describing his search of computerized records. Defendant's blanket statement that no electronic documents had been withheld from was insufficient to allow the court to understand what, if any steps, plaintiff undertook to search for the unaccounted for emails.
In light of defendant's inability to account for a two-year gap in emails produced to plaintiff in response to a document demand, the court ordered defendant to create a detailed affidavit describing his search of computerized records. Defendant's blanket statement that no electronic documents had been withheld from was insufficient to allow the court to understand what, if any steps, plaintiff undertook to search for the unaccounted for emails.
Diepenhorst v. City of Battle Creek, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48551 (W.D. Mich. Jun. 30, 2006).
In a sexual harassment action, defendant's motion to compel forensic examination of plaintiff's computer hard drive was denied. Allowing defense experts to make a mirror image of plaintiff's hard drive was not supported by evidence that plaintiff had destroyed evidence or otherwise failed to meet her discovery obligations.
In a sexual harassment action, defendant's motion to compel forensic examination of plaintiff's computer hard drive was denied. Allowing defense experts to make a mirror image of plaintiff's hard drive was not supported by evidence that plaintiff had destroyed evidence or otherwise failed to meet her discovery obligations.
Warner Bros. Records, Inc. v. Souther, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42249 (W.D.N.C. Jun. 1, 2006).
A defendant who claimed she authorized no one to use her computer to download copyrighted music was ordered to identify all persons who may have used her computer, and as to minors who may have used the computer, to identify their parents.
A defendant who claimed she authorized no one to use her computer to download copyrighted music was ordered to identify all persons who may have used her computer, and as to minors who may have used the computer, to identify their parents.
O'Grady v. Superior Court, 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 802 (Cal. Ct. App. May 16, 2006).
State civil subpoenas to third party online news magazines raised a conflict with the federal Stored Communications Act, and a protective order should have been issued to bar enforcement of the subpoenas.
State civil subpoenas to third party online news magazines raised a conflict with the federal Stored Communications Act, and a protective order should have been issued to bar enforcement of the subpoenas.
Benson v. St. Joseph Regional Health Center, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28795 (N.D. Tex. May 1, 2006).
A motion to compel additional electronic searches in an action related to a hospital's peer review process was denied because statements under oath from the hospital and statements by hospital counsel to the court that all responsive documents had been produced were presumed, in the absence of any showing to the contrary, to have been made with a good faith belief in their truthfulness.
A motion to compel additional electronic searches in an action related to a hospital's peer review process was denied because statements under oath from the hospital and statements by hospital counsel to the court that all responsive documents had been produced were presumed, in the absence of any showing to the contrary, to have been made with a good faith belief in their truthfulness.
Floeter v. City of Orlando, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19577 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2006).
A city was not required to allow a search of city computer hard drives by a plaintiff in a sexual harassment action because plaintiff had not shown that the city had failed to produce information on the hard drives.
A city was not required to allow a search of city computer hard drives by a plaintiff in a sexual harassment action because plaintiff had not shown that the city had failed to produce information on the hard drives.
Tessera, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25114 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2006).
A non-party was ordered in a patent infringement and antitrust action to produce DVD-ROMS or hard drives containing documents with designated search terms found in a database compiled during a Department of Justice investigation of the random access memory chip industry. Another database compiled during a Federal Trade Commission investigation with email that could not be searched beyond the subject line was ordered produced in its entirety.
A non-party was ordered in a patent infringement and antitrust action to produce DVD-ROMS or hard drives containing documents with designated search terms found in a database compiled during a Department of Justice investigation of the random access memory chip industry. Another database compiled during a Federal Trade Commission investigation with email that could not be searched beyond the subject line was ordered produced in its entirety.
Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Department of Defense, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57319 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2006).
In a Freedom of Information Act suit, Government agencies were ordered to release all segregable factual information contained in email withheld by the agencies pursuant to the deliberative process privilege of FOIA Exemption 5.
In a Freedom of Information Act suit, Government agencies were ordered to release all segregable factual information contained in email withheld by the agencies pursuant to the deliberative process privilege of FOIA Exemption 5.
FTC v. Ameridebt, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13687 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2006).
A third party was ordered to give Google, Inc., permission to produce email from one of his accounts with Google after the court allowed him to withhold privileged documents. The third party had produced no evidence that the volume of documents was so large that determining their privilege status would be burdensome, and the email could be screened efficiently with the use of electronic search terms agreed upon by the parties.
A third party was ordered to give Google, Inc., permission to produce email from one of his accounts with Google after the court allowed him to withhold privileged documents. The third party had produced no evidence that the volume of documents was so large that determining their privilege status would be burdensome, and the email could be screened efficiently with the use of electronic search terms agreed upon by the parties.
Bryant v. Jones, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12542 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 10, 2006).
In an employment discrimination case, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for sanctions against defendants for not revealing their ability to retrieve and summarize county-wide employee demographic information. The information would have supported plaintiffs' request to expand discovery, but plaintiffs did not raise the issue at a hearing on discovery issues and no order to provide discovery had been entered and in turn violated by defendants.
In an employment discrimination case, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for sanctions against defendants for not revealing their ability to retrieve and summarize county-wide employee demographic information. The information would have supported plaintiffs' request to expand discovery, but plaintiffs did not raise the issue at a hearing on discovery issues and no order to provide discovery had been entered and in turn violated by defendants.
Electrolux Home Products, Inc. v. Whitesell Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7079 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 15, 2006).
A finding of a non-party's bad faith was not a prerequisite to allowing defendant's computer forensics expert to examine the non-party's computer system.
A finding of a non-party's bad faith was not a prerequisite to allowing defendant's computer forensics expert to examine the non-party's computer system.
Treppel v. Biovail Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4407 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2006).
Although plaintiff's request for an order to prevent the destruction of evidence was premature due to the lack of evidence that any potentially relevant documents had been destroyed, the court ordered defendant to respond to a document retention questionnaire that exceeded a 25 interrogatory limit, to explain its search protocol, and to produce responsive documents.
Although plaintiff's request for an order to prevent the destruction of evidence was premature due to the lack of evidence that any potentially relevant documents had been destroyed, the court ordered defendant to respond to a document retention questionnaire that exceeded a 25 interrogatory limit, to explain its search protocol, and to produce responsive documents.
Quinby v. WESTLB AG,, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1178 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2006).
Subpoenas to third parties seeking all email sent to or received in plaintiff's personal email accounts were quashed. While the subpoenas excluded email to and from plaintiff's counsel, the subpoenas ignored the requirement that a discovery request must be limited to relevant material.
Subpoenas to third parties seeking all email sent to or received in plaintiff's personal email accounts were quashed. While the subpoenas excluded email to and from plaintiff's counsel, the subpoenas ignored the requirement that a discovery request must be limited to relevant material.
New York v. AMTRAK, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4684 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2006).
In a matter of apparent first impression, the Office of the State Comptroller of New York was held to be a constitutionally separate agency and thus not required to produce email relevant to a contract between New York and Amtrak in an action by the state against the railroad.
In a matter of apparent first impression, the Office of the State Comptroller of New York was held to be a constitutionally separate agency and thus not required to produce email relevant to a contract between New York and Amtrak in an action by the state against the railroad.
Leviton Manufacturing Co. v. Nicor, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27655 (D. N.M. Jan. 6, 2006).
A Chinese company was ordered to provide access to its computers for inspection by Leviton following a demonstration by Leviton that assertions by the Chinese company and its counsel that all information requested had been produced were not accurate.
A Chinese company was ordered to provide access to its computers for inspection by Leviton following a demonstration by Leviton that assertions by the Chinese company and its counsel that all information requested had been produced were not accurate.
Quinby v. Westlb AG,, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35583 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2005).
Sanctions were not warranted for defendant's failure to produce email accessible from sources other than more expensive backup tapes because the backup tapes would produce the most complete results, and defendant and its consultant were thus correct to focus on the backup tapes as the primary method of production.
Sanctions were not warranted for defendant's failure to produce email accessible from sources other than more expensive backup tapes because the backup tapes would produce the most complete results, and defendant and its consultant were thus correct to focus on the backup tapes as the primary method of production.
In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36195 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2005).
A bank holding company was ordered to produce documents of its wholly-owned subsidiaries due to the company's legal control of its subsidiaries.
A bank holding company was ordered to produce documents of its wholly-owned subsidiaries due to the company's legal control of its subsidiaries.
In re Natural Gas Commodity Litigation,, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27470 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2005).
After limiting the scope of subpoenas to non-party publishers of trade data indices, a magistrate judge ordered document production despite the qualified journalist's privilege. Plaintiffs demonstrated a need for the information that could not be satisfied reasonably through other means, and plaintiffs offered to pay for staff required by one of the publishers to respond to the subpoenas.
After limiting the scope of subpoenas to non-party publishers of trade data indices, a magistrate judge ordered document production despite the qualified journalist's privilege. Plaintiffs demonstrated a need for the information that could not be satisfied reasonably through other means, and plaintiffs offered to pay for staff required by one of the publishers to respond to the subpoenas.
United States ex rel Tyson v. Amerigroup Ill., Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24929 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 21, 2005).
Non-party not required to restore electronic data from backup tapes. A third-party subpoena to an employer for email generated by three employees was quashed as unduly burdensome even though the party requesting the documents agreed to pay the costs of the production. A review of the email of an employee of the third party would take six weeks, and the need of the party requesting the documents was not compelling given that the party already had sought summary judgment.
Non-party not required to restore electronic data from backup tapes. A third-party subpoena to an employer for email generated by three employees was quashed as unduly burdensome even though the party requesting the documents agreed to pay the costs of the production. A review of the email of an employee of the third party would take six weeks, and the need of the party requesting the documents was not compelling given that the party already had sought summary judgment.
Innovative Piledriving Products, LLC v. Unisto Oy, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23652 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 14, 2005).
A plaintiff that asserted there were no responsive documents that had not been produced was ordered to at least provide an affidavit in response to a discovery request. The affidavit had to detail efforts of the plaintiff to locate, retrieve and restore responsive electronic data that apparently was automatically deleted from plaintiff's computer system.
A plaintiff that asserted there were no responsive documents that had not been produced was ordered to at least provide an affidavit in response to a discovery request. The affidavit had to detail efforts of the plaintiff to locate, retrieve and restore responsive electronic data that apparently was automatically deleted from plaintiff's computer system.
Menke v. Broward County School Board, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 15291 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2005).
An administrative law judge's order granting access for a school board's expert to inspect all computers in the home of a suspended high school teacher was quashed. The order prevented assertion of the teacher's privilege against self-incrimination and of the rights of privacy of the teacher and others within his household.
An administrative law judge's order granting access for a school board's expert to inspect all computers in the home of a suspended high school teacher was quashed. The order prevented assertion of the teacher's privilege against self-incrimination and of the rights of privacy of the teacher and others within his household.
United States ex rel. Smith v. Boeing Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36890 (D. Kan. Aug. 31, 2005).
In an action under the False Claims Act, the court declined to issue a preservation order requiring a defendant to preserve electronic evidence for discovery and trial. The court was persuaded that the defendant had taken appropriate steps to preserve evidence within days after learning of the lawsuit and a preservation order was unnecessary.
In an action under the False Claims Act, the court declined to issue a preservation order requiring a defendant to preserve electronic evidence for discovery and trial. The court was persuaded that the defendant had taken appropriate steps to preserve evidence within days after learning of the lawsuit and a preservation order was unnecessary.
In re Crompton Corp. Securities Litigation, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23002 (D. Conn. Aug. 16, 2005)
A federal district court ordered the plaintiff in a state shareholder derivative action to return about 2.5 million pages of electronic discovery provided pursuant to an order of the state court by the defendant several days prior to the federal court's stay of discovery in the state action pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
A federal district court ordered the plaintiff in a state shareholder derivative action to return about 2.5 million pages of electronic discovery provided pursuant to an order of the state court by the defendant several days prior to the federal court's stay of discovery in the state action pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. CPT Medical Services, P.C., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12754 (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 28, 2005).
In a civil RICO action filed against doctors for conducting allegedly unnecessary medical tests on insureds injured in auto accidents, the court held that a magistrate's order compelling the doctors at their expense to respond to discovery requests was proper. However, the court limited required production of telephone and e-mail records to communications between the physicians and other defendants.
In a civil RICO action filed against doctors for conducting allegedly unnecessary medical tests on insureds injured in auto accidents, the court held that a magistrate's order compelling the doctors at their expense to respond to discovery requests was proper. However, the court limited required production of telephone and e-mail records to communications between the physicians and other defendants.
Jinks-Umstead v. England,, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5813 (D.D.C. Apr. 7, 2005).
Plaintiff, a head contracting officer, claimed in a Title VII Civil Rights action that the Navy took away her supervisory status for discriminatory and retaliatory reasons. Following plaintiff's presentation of her case at trial, the Navy produced for the first time approximately 1,400 pages of "work in place" reports used to determine support staff requirements and relevant to the litigation.. Prior to the trial, the Navy had erroneously claimed it no longer had the reports.
Plaintiff, a head contracting officer, claimed in a Title VII Civil Rights action that the Navy took away her supervisory status for discriminatory and retaliatory reasons. Following plaintiff's presentation of her case at trial, the Navy produced for the first time approximately 1,400 pages of "work in place" reports used to determine support staff requirements and relevant to the litigation.. Prior to the trial, the Navy had erroneously claimed it no longer had the reports.
Weiller v. New York Life Ins. Co., 2005 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 473 (N.Y. Cty. Sup. Ct. Mar. 16, 2005).
A disability insurer was ordered in a class action filed in a New York state court to preserve documents and data. The insurer's counsel had agreed to preserve the documents and data but declined to agree to an order on the basis that the insurer already was subject to preservation orders in multidistrict federal litigation and to requirements under the securities laws for preserving documents. The New York court held that scenarios could arise in which federal preservation orders might not provide sufficient protection for the plaintiff in the New York action.
A disability insurer was ordered in a class action filed in a New York state court to preserve documents and data. The insurer's counsel had agreed to preserve the documents and data but declined to agree to an order on the basis that the insurer already was subject to preservation orders in multidistrict federal litigation and to requirements under the securities laws for preserving documents. The New York court held that scenarios could arise in which federal preservation orders might not provide sufficient protection for the plaintiff in the New York action.
United States v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C., 2005 WL 273030 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2005).
Court granted plaintiffs' motion to modify case management order and to establish discovery deadlines due to defendants' disclosure of incomplete and defective electronic data.
Court granted plaintiffs' motion to modify case management order and to establish discovery deadlines due to defendants' disclosure of incomplete and defective electronic data.
Bieler v. Amco Ins. Co., 2005 Mont. Dist. LEXIS 759 (Mont. Dist. Ct. Jan. 1, 2005).
A protective order was granted barring a deposition of an insurer about its efforts to respond to plaintiff's discovery requests because how the insurer handled the litigation was not relevant to the issues in the litigation. However, the court ordered the insurer to produce a printout of the "history" of electronic documents that were produced to the plaintiff.
A protective order was granted barring a deposition of an insurer about its efforts to respond to plaintiff's discovery requests because how the insurer handled the litigation was not relevant to the issues in the litigation. However, the court ordered the insurer to produce a printout of the "history" of electronic documents that were produced to the plaintiff.
Sondker v. Philips Electronics North America, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14477 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 27, 2004).
The court denied a motion to strike hard copies of email attachments to an opposition to a summary judgment motion. Although the attachments had been asked for in a letter from opposing counsel seeking all attachments being used as evidence, that letter did not meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2) and a local rule that a party must first attempt to resolve the issue before filing a motion to strike.
The court denied a motion to strike hard copies of email attachments to an opposition to a summary judgment motion. Although the attachments had been asked for in a letter from opposing counsel seeking all attachments being used as evidence, that letter did not meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2) and a local rule that a party must first attempt to resolve the issue before filing a motion to strike.
In re Search of 3817 W. West End, 321 F. Supp. 2d 953 (N.D. Ill. 2004).
While a court agreed with the government that there was probable cause to believe a computer in a private residence contained evidence of alleged tax fraud, the court barred the government from searching the seized computer without first filing a protocol with the court showing how a search of irrelevant information would be avoided.
While a court agreed with the government that there was probable cause to believe a computer in a private residence contained evidence of alleged tax fraud, the court barred the government from searching the seized computer without first filing a protocol with the court showing how a search of irrelevant information would be avoided.
Fresenius Medical Care Holding, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc., 224 F.R.D. 644 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2004).
A party's response that it had produced all documents that it deemed relevant was insufficient, and the party was ordered to produce all non-privileged documents or certify that it had produced all such documents.
A party's response that it had produced all documents that it deemed relevant was insufficient, and the party was ordered to produce all non-privileged documents or certify that it had produced all such documents.
Marcin Eng'g, LLC v. Founders at Grizzly Ranch, LLC, 219 F.R.D. 516 (D. Colo. 2003).
Builders of a master planned community, facing summary judgment in an action by an engineering company for payment for services, were not entitled to reopen expert discovery for review of preliminary computerized engineering studies that the builders sought. The engineering company would not be using the computerized information at trial, and the builders had been dilatory in reviewing hard copy final plans and in claiming production by the company had been incomplete.
Builders of a master planned community, facing summary judgment in an action by an engineering company for payment for services, were not entitled to reopen expert discovery for review of preliminary computerized engineering studies that the builders sought. The engineering company would not be using the computerized information at trial, and the builders had been dilatory in reviewing hard copy final plans and in claiming production by the company had been incomplete.
Taylor v. State, 93 S.W.3d 487 (Tex. App. 2002).
Defendant's conviction for possession of nine photographs found on his computer's hard drive and alleged to be child pornography was reversed because the State formatted defendant's drive during the copying process and destroyed its file allocation structure. The State then placed the copy on a drive that the State had used in prior pornography prosecutions but had not wiped clean before the copying.
Defendant's conviction for possession of nine photographs found on his computer's hard drive and alleged to be child pornography was reversed because the State formatted defendant's drive during the copying process and destroyed its file allocation structure. The State then placed the copy on a drive that the State had used in prior pornography prosecutions but had not wiped clean before the copying.
Anita Kaufman Family Partnership v. Kinko's, Inc, No. CA18894, letter opinion filed Apr. 19, 2002 (Del. Ch. Apr. 16, 2002).
Court ordered defendants to produce certain email communications which could lead to core of relevant communications regarding transaction at issue, despite defendants' argument that their electronic document storage retrieval system did not make the information readily accessible.
Court ordered defendants to produce certain email communications which could lead to core of relevant communications regarding transaction at issue, despite defendants' argument that their electronic document storage retrieval system did not make the information readily accessible.
Cerruti 1881 S.A. v. Cerruti, Inc., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18712 (S.D. N.Y. December 17, 1996).
A court-appointed computer expert found that defendants had fabricated and manipulated discovery records on a computer disk for the purpose of making it difficult for the expert to find any fabricated material.
A court-appointed computer expert found that defendants had fabricated and manipulated discovery records on a computer disk for the purpose of making it difficult for the expert to find any fabricated material.
PHE, Inc. v. Department of Justice, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16382 (D.C. November 14, 1991).
Plaintiffs were ordered to produce computerized tax records even though plaintiffs possessed no computer program to retrieve or display the records; the production would not be overly burdensome and the expenditures would be modest.
Plaintiffs were ordered to produce computerized tax records even though plaintiffs possessed no computer program to retrieve or display the records; the production would not be overly burdensome and the expenditures would be modest.
Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522 (1987).
Although the Hague Evidence Convention applied to production of documents by foreign corporations in signatory nations, the Convention supplemented rather than replaced other methods of discovery provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. U.S. District Courts had jurisdiction to order production of documents by foreign litigants under the Federal Rules despite foreign “blocking” statutes and availability of alternative means under the Convention to obtain evidence from abroad.
Although the Hague Evidence Convention applied to production of documents by foreign corporations in signatory nations, the Convention supplemented rather than replaced other methods of discovery provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. U.S. District Courts had jurisdiction to order production of documents by foreign litigants under the Federal Rules despite foreign “blocking” statutes and availability of alternative means under the Convention to obtain evidence from abroad.
Daewoo Electronics Co., Ltd. v. United States, 650 F. Supp. 1003 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986).
In an antidumping proceeding involving color television sets from Korea, the Department of Commerce was ordered to provide an electronics manufacturer with copies of computer tapes used by Commerce in its administrative review. Turning over reels of tape that did not include distillation of data from the tapes was an inadequate response. The court held that an order to disclose computer tapes should have been understood to include disclosure of all further refined forms of electronic storage of the data.
In an antidumping proceeding involving color television sets from Korea, the Department of Commerce was ordered to provide an electronics manufacturer with copies of computer tapes used by Commerce in its administrative review. Turning over reels of tape that did not include distillation of data from the tapes was an inadequate response. The court held that an order to disclose computer tapes should have been understood to include disclosure of all further refined forms of electronic storage of the data.
United States v. International Business Machines Corp., 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14605 (S.D. N.Y. August 5, 1977).
A computer company was ordered to produce specified information and a computer examiner was also appointed due to the highly technical and complex nature of the production.
A computer company was ordered to produce specified information and a computer examiner was also appointed due to the highly technical and complex nature of the production.
