Tag: Data Privacy

1
Allen v. PPE Casino Resorts Maryland, LLC (D. Md. 2021)
2
Denson v. Corp. of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (D. Utah, 2020)
3
Rodriguez-Ruiz v. Microsoft Operations Puerto Rico (District of Puerto Rico, 2020)
4
Taylor v. Kilmer (Northern District of Illionis, 2020)
5
Nevis v. Rideout Memorial Hospital, et al. (Eastern District of California, 2020)
6
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Obhof (6th Circuit, 2020)
7
Rhino Metals, Inc. v. Sturdy Gun Safe, Inc. (District of Idaho, 2020)
8
Commonwealth v. Davis (PA Supreme Court, 2019)
9
United States v. Beverly (Fifth Circuit, 2019)
10
Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc. et al. (District of Delaware, 2019)

Allen v. PPE Casino Resorts Maryland, LLC (D. Md. 2021)

Key Insight: Plaintiffs sought a protective order to prevent defendant from obtaining ESI from five different social media platforms they were active on. The court found that while a plaintiff’s social media postings could be relevant to a claim for “garden variety” emotional distress damages, some caution was necessary, such that a “deeper dive” into social media postings may be justified only in cases involving “severe and specific emotional distress” allegations. Since plaintiff alleged “garden variety” emotional distress stemming from defendant’s allegedly wrongful conduct, the discovery must be narrowed as follows: “specific references to serious, non-transient emotional distress in connection with the incidents described in their Complaint,” i.e., diagnosable conditions, visits to professionals for treatment of distress, treatment regimens and conversations regarding same; time frame limited from date contained in complaint of onset of difficulties to the date of filing of complaint; production limited to information found in a typical download of data from plaintiffs’ own accounts and plaintiffs “need not engage in extraordinary efforts in obtaining responsive information.”

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Social media posts

Case Summary

Denson v. Corp. of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (D. Utah, 2020)

Key Insight: Plaintiff’s explanation regarding loss of evidence had changed and court ruled that defendant was entitled to have a third party collect and preserve the evidence. Plaintiff offered passwords to accounts, but court was concerned about possible destruction given Plaintiff’s changing explanation regarding social media accounts and recording.

Nature of Case: Sexual Assault

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic Devices and Cloud Based Accounts; Recording of conversation

Keywords: invasion of privacy, loss of evidence

View Case Opinion

Rodriguez-Ruiz v. Microsoft Operations Puerto Rico (District of Puerto Rico, 2020)

Key Insight: Social media posts are generally not protected by privacy concerns, but discovery of social media posts do need to be limited and proportional to the case’s needs

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Social media posts

Keywords: Privacy, Facebook, Microsoft, wrongful termination, ADA, social media

View Case Opinion

Taylor v. Kilmer (Northern District of Illionis, 2020)

Key Insight: argue that those requests and subpoenas are overly broad

Nature of Case: Motor vehicle accident negligence, personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: medical bills, records, and data for treatment received over a year before incident pertaining to rate of reimbursement

Keywords: subpoena, provider billing structure, medical billing and records, overly broad and burdensome

View Case Opinion

Nevis v. Rideout Memorial Hospital, et al. (Eastern District of California, 2020)

Key Insight: Plaintiff was made aware that he had to preserve his phone records and text records and than failed to do so

Nature of Case: personal injury and liability

Electronic Data Involved: plaintiff’s cell phone and text messages

Keywords: spoliation, text messages, phone records, cell phone, preservation

View Case Opinion

Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Obhof (6th Circuit, 2020)

Key Insight: third parties want the court to investigate all of the people that had access to discovery materials and assure that they are destroyed for fear of future litigation or political liability

Nature of Case: gerrymandering

Electronic Data Involved: discovery that had been produced

Keywords: preserving confidentiality of information, public accessibility

View Case Opinion

Rhino Metals, Inc. v. Sturdy Gun Safe, Inc. (District of Idaho, 2020)

Key Insight: two reports for different suits, written by the same expert. defendants in those cases subpoenaed each other’s report to get it without confidentiality restrictions

Nature of Case: intellectual property infringement

Electronic Data Involved: expert report deemed confidential

Keywords: subpoena, expert report, confidential, privilege, protective order

View Case Opinion

Commonwealth v. Davis (PA Supreme Court, 2019)

Key Insight: computer passwords/access, act of production

Nature of Case: Fifth Amendment violation (Criminal)

Electronic Data Involved: computer files

Keywords: “foregone conclusion” exception, password, search warrant, encryption, testimonial in nature, compulsion of mental processes

Identified State Rule(s): Pa.R.A.P. 313(b)

Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc. et al. (District of Delaware, 2019)

Key Insight: public interest in court pleadings, discovery motions shouldn’t be redacted

Nature of Case: patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: discovery pleadings

Keywords: sealing judicial record, discovery pleadings, burden to show disclosure would cause injury

View Case Opinion

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