Nithiananthan v. Toirac, No. CA2011-09-098, 2012 368332 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2012)

Key Insight: Court held that ?a requesting party must demonstrate that the other party has committed a history of discovery violations to the extent that the court finds it necessary to order the invasion of privacy attendant to forensic imaging? and also identified an appropriate forensic imaging protocol; judgment ordering forensic imaging of defendant?s computer was reversed and remanded

Nature of Case: Private Nuisance

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic image of defendants’ computer

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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 © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.