Archive - October 2008

Hoover v. Fla. Hydro, Inc., 2008 WL 4467661 (E.D. La. 2008)

In this breach of contract case, Hoover moved to quash subpoenas issued by defendant to two non-parties:  Hoover’s mother and Hoover’s former roommate. The subpoena issued to Hoover’s mother requested inspection of her laptop or any electronic storage device “for documents copied, sent to, or received by her son” related to several entities, including the defendant.  The subpoena issued to the former roommate, Sanghani, also sought inspection of his laptop computer and any other electronic storage device or computer “that has any responsive documents.”  The subpoena further requested documents, “whether in paper form or electronically submitted,” between Hoover and Sanghani that referred to specific persons or topics.

Read More

Koosharem Corp. v. Spec Personnel, LLC, 2008 WL 4458864 (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 2008)

In this breach of contract case, plaintiffs alleged that defendants wrongfully obtained and used confidential information from former employee, Kenneth Fuston, who went to work for the defendants.  Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that defendants used the information to hire approximately 20 of plaintiffs’ employees, open new offices in eight cities, and embark upon a new line of business in competition with plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs moved to compel production of computers believed to contain information related to those claims.  The court had previously granted a motion to compel and ordered defendants to produce emails to or from any current or former employee or customer of the plaintiff found on Fuston’s home computer and documents reflecting communication with the defendant and certain former employees of the plaintiff. Defendants produced 1,936 pages of email.  Believing the production was incomplete, plaintiffs brought a second motion to compel. 

Read More

Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. Hubbell Inc., 2008 WL 4240490 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2008)

In this patent infringement case, the court addressed the issue of whether, in response to 72 separate document requests, the plaintiff’s production in digital format of 405,367 pages of documents, apportioned among 202 unlabeled folders and which through application of litigation support software could be made text searchable, but was otherwise neither organized to correlate to the document demands nor in any fashion indexed or labeled to reflect how they were maintained in the ordinary course of plaintiff’s business, satisfied the responding party’s obligations under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Plaintiff asserted that, pursuant to FRCP 34, it had produced the documents in the manner in which they were maintained in the ordinary course of business and therefore need not indicate to which request the documents were responsive.  In support of its position, plaintiff offered only the statement of an attorney indicating that the documents had been assembled as they had been maintained.

Read More

Kipperman v. Onex Corp., 2008 WL 4372005 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 19, 2008)

In this case, Onex presented several motions to the court, including a motion for a protective order and for relief from the need to produce all documents identified after searching several backup tapes.  The court denied in part and granted in part Onex’s motion, and ordered Onex to produce all identified documents, except for two specific categories deemed unlikely to contain relevant information.

Read More