New York Court Provides Detailed Instruction on Protocol for Discovery of Cloned Hard Drive
Schreiber v. Schreiber, 2010 WL 2735672 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 25, 2010)
In this matrimonial action, plaintiff sought access to her husband’s (the defendant) office computer to determine his true financial condition. After denying plaintiff’s initial motion, the court directed (by stipulated order) that a clone of defendant’s office hard drive be made at plaintiff’s expense. Thereafter, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for access to the cloned drive upon finding her request for unrestricted access overbroad. “Equally important” to the court was plaintiff’s failure to propose any protocol for investigation of defendant’s hard drive. The court instructed that should the plaintiff wish to renew her motion, her renewal “must contain a detailed, step-by-step discovery protocol that would allow for the protection of privileged and private material.” Moreover, the court provided detailed instruction for what such a protocol should contain: