Archive: September 2013

1
E.D. Michigan Approves Model Order Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information & a Meet and Confer Checklist for Pilot Use
2
Court Declines to Compel Response to “Ultra-Broad” Request for Passwords and User Names or Allow “Exhaustive Forensic Examination” of Computers
3
Magistrate Judge Declines to Presume Prejudice, Recommends Denial of Motion for Sanctions
4
Plaintiff Ordered to Adhere to “Document Production Agreement” Despite Difficulty Finding an “Inexpensive” Technology Provider
5
Citing Proportionality, Court Concludes it would be “Senseless” to Require Plaintiff to “Go to Great Lengths” to Produce Evidence Defendants are “Able to Do Without”

E.D. Michigan Approves Model Order Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information & a Meet and Confer Checklist for Pilot Use

The judges of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan have announced the approval, “on a pilot period basis,” of a Model Order Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information and a Rule 26(f) meet and confer checklist.  “It is within the judicial officer’s discretion whether these materials may be used.”

The Model Order sets forth a series of principles which address a myriad of issues including cooperation, proportionality, the duty to meet and confer, preservation, the identification of electronically stored information (ESI) and format of production, among others.  The checklist sets forth a series of potential topics to be discussed at the parties’ meet and confer.

Read More

Court Declines to Compel Response to “Ultra-Broad” Request for Passwords and User Names or Allow “Exhaustive Forensic Examination” of Computers

NOLA Spice Designs, LLC v. Haydel Enters., Inc., No. 12-2515, 2013 WL 3974535 (E.D. La. Aug. 2, 2013)

In this trademark infringement case, Defendant sought to compel Plaintiff and its principal (a third-party defendant) to produce “passwords and user names to all online web sites related to the issues in this litigation” and to compel Plaintiff and its principal to “submit their computers to an exhaustive forensic examination.”  Because the request for passwords and user names was “ultra-broad” and would allow Defendant to “roam freely through all manner of personal and financial data” and because Defendant “failed sufficiently to justify the broad forensic computer examination it request[ed],” the court denied the motion.

Read More

Magistrate Judge Declines to Presume Prejudice, Recommends Denial of Motion for Sanctions

Herrmann v. Rain Link, Inc., No. 11-1123-RDR, 2013 WL 4028759 (D. Kan. Aug. 7, 2013)

Plaintiff sought sanctions for Defendants’ allegedly intentional spoliation of evidence and argued that prejudice could be presumed.  The Magistrate Judge declined to do so and also found that Defendants’ spoliation was merely negligent.  Thus, absent a showing of actual prejudice, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s motion be denied.

Read More

Plaintiff Ordered to Adhere to “Document Production Agreement” Despite Difficulty Finding an “Inexpensive” Technology Provider

Northstar Marine, Inc. v. Huffman, CA 13-00037-WS-C (S.D. Ala. Aug. 27, 2013)

Despite Plaintiff’s assertion that it was “having difficulty locating an inexpensive provider of electronic search technology to assist with discovery” the court granted Defendants’ motion to enforce Plaintiff’s compliance with the parties’ document production agreement which, among other things, required each party to “immediately arrange to use computer-assisted search technology” in furtherance of its electronic discovery obligations and to immediately produce its search results in native format.

Read More

Citing Proportionality, Court Concludes it would be “Senseless” to Require Plaintiff to “Go to Great Lengths” to Produce Evidence Defendants are “Able to Do Without”

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd., No. 12-CV-0630-LHK (PSG), 2013 WL 4426512 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2013)

Relying on the “all-to-often [sic] ignored discovery principle” of proportionality the court declined to compel Plaintiff “to go to great lengths” to produce information that the defendants could “do without.”

Read More

Copyright © 2015, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.