View by Topic
Duties Respecting Electronic Evidence > Third Parties
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nicholas v. Wyndham International, Inc., 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 13740 (4th Cir. July 2, 2004).
A company closely held by plaintiffs who filed a personal injury action against a hotel chain was not required to produce email. The district court acted within its discretion in deciding the production sought was cumulative and duplicative, unduly burdensome, and harassing.
A company closely held by plaintiffs who filed a personal injury action against a hotel chain was not required to produce email. The district court acted within its discretion in deciding the production sought was cumulative and duplicative, unduly burdensome, and harassing.
In re Honeywell Int'l, Inc. Securities Litigation, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20602 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2003).
Court orders third party to re-produce relevant documents previously produced in paper form, finding that documents should have been produced electronically, as they were kept in the usual course of business. Court denies overbroad request for email and other electronic documents, finding that requesting party failed to issue sufficiently tailored document request.
Court orders third party to re-produce relevant documents previously produced in paper form, finding that documents should have been produced electronically, as they were kept in the usual course of business. Court denies overbroad request for email and other electronic documents, finding that requesting party failed to issue sufficiently tailored document request.
Southern Diagnostic Assocs. v. Bencosme, 833 So. 2d 801, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15684, 27 Fla. L. Weekly D 2344 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. Oct. 30, 2002).
Court disallows unlimited inspection of computer system.
Court disallows unlimited inspection of computer system.
Braxton v. Farmer's Ins. Group, 209 F.R.D. 651, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18085, 54 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 28 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 12, 2002).
Third party not required to produce emails sent by defendant.
Third party not required to produce emails sent by defendant.
