Musket Corp. v. Star Fuel of Okla., No. CIV-11-444-M, 2012 WL 3986344 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 11, 2012); No. CIV-11-444-M, 2012 WL 4363752 (Sept. 21, 2012)

Key Insight: Where independent forensic examiner was tasked with determining whether plaintiff?s data was present on defendant?s laptop and with maintaining an image of defendant?s laptop sealed from inspection, but where plaintiff reserved the right seek discovery and thereafter subpoened the non-party investigator to produce the mirror image of defendant?s laptop, magistrate judge found that rule 45 subpoena was an appropriate discovery method and denied defendant?s motion to quash; on emergency appeal, the District Court noted that allowing direct inspection of a party?s hard drive was not routine, that because of the presence of potentially privileged material, even plaintiff?s expert should not have access to the entire hard drive without allowing defendant?s to object to the production of certain information and that in light of the short time before trial it was ?simply too late?; court noted that this ?predicament? was one plaintiff ?created itself? by waiting to seek access to the hard drive despite knowing for months of the potential that its data was present there

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Copyright © 2021, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.