Key Insight: Court granted motion for expedited discovery to issue subpoenas to relevant ISPs seeking information sufficient to identify Doe defendants
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information from ISP
Key Insight: Court granted motion for expedited discovery allowing plaintiff to serve Rule 45 subpoenas on ISPs to obtain information sufficient to identify Doe defendants
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Names of ISP subscribers
Key Insight: Despite Facebook?s assertions that an ESI protocol was unnecessary and that there was no basis to require rigid up-front requirements, court cited the ?clear thrust of discovery-related rules, case law, and commentary? suggesting that communication among counsel is critical and ordered parties to meet and confer to establish protocol to establish the format of production, search terms, etc.; court ordered re-production of any ESI already produced in non-searchable formats and prohibited Facebook?s further use of Watchdox.com to make ESI available to plaintiffs where the method was unduly burdensome to plaintiffs (in light of Facebook?s control of the documents, ability to track what was reviewed, etc.) and where parties previously agreed to a protective order which provided sufficient protection to the documents at issue
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court granted motion to serve expedited discovery on Doe #1?s Internet Service Provider seeking information sufficient to identify the Doe for service but severed Does 2-2099 from the case upon finding that they had been improperly joined
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information for ISP subscribers
Key Insight: Court found plaintiff had shown good cause and granted motion to serve expedited discovery on the identified Internet Service Providers of Does 1-21 for the purpose of learning the identity of the Does for service
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Names and contact information for ISP subscribers
Key Insight: Where defendant ?was late in responding to some of plaintiff?s discovery requests, and failed to respond to Plaintiff?s good faith attempts to open a dialogue about electronic discovery? and where there was evidence that defendant knew what plaintiff was seeking but ?was deliberatively evasive and caused unnecessary delay? (by failing to produce relevant records because plaintiff had not specifically asked for documents containing specific terms, for example) the court indicted that defendant?s actions were not in line with the Federal Rules, the Seventh Circuit?s Pilot Program principles, or the Sedona Principles and ordered payment of certain of plaintiff?s fees and costs; court noted Plaintiff?s contributions to the delays by ?aggressively pursuing motions to compel and for sanctions when there may have been opportunities for more amicable resolutions? and thus declined to impose cost or fees related to duplicative or repetitive motions
Nature of Case: Breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court upheld clawback agreement between the parties which held that inadvertent production would not result in waiver; where parties entered into 26(f) agreement regarding what metadata need be produced but where plaintiff moved to compel production of additional fields because those provided did not allow him to search effectively or identify the source of particular documents, the court entered into an extensive analysis of the ?form? and ?organization? requirements in Rule 34 and withheld ruling until defendant could provide evidence regarding the burden of providing an index that could allow identification of the source of each document
Nature of Case: State employment claims
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, metadata
Key Insight: Where plaintiffs challenged the sufficiency of defendants? search, including whether defendants had used the agreed-upon search terms, and the format of defendant?s production, and where plaintiff specifically pointed to an email that should have been produced but was not, the court noted plaintiffs? concession that defendants? search methodology did not result in plaintiff receiving fewer documents and that they had been able to use the information produced, despite their arguments regarding format, but ?nevertheless concluded? that defendants should provide additional information and ordered the submission of an affidavit detailing defendants? search efforts; the court concluded that the dispute in this case was ?caused primarily by the parties? mutual failure to communicate and work together in good faith to resolve the areas of dispute? and counseled that in future the parties should more clearly specify the way in which discovery will be conducted and, if they cannot agree, should seek judicial assistance
Nature of Case: Suit for damages arising from failure to provide proper ship management
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Plaintiff?s motion for leave to take immediate discovery to obtain information sufficient to identify Does 1-59 (by serving subpoenas upon their internet service providers and cable providers) was granted where plaintiff identified the missing parties with sufficient specificity to allow the court to determine that the parties could be sued in federal court, where there were no other means by which plaintiff could obtain the information sought, and where plaintiff?s action could withstand a motion to dismiss
Nature of Case: Unlawful access to stored communications and copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Name of subscriber
Key Insight: Where parties had an agreement to produce in native format which the court had approved and adopted but later agreed that defendant could produce some information in hard copy (in light of defendant?s representation that hard copy production could be more quickly accomplished prior to pending depositions), the court found the parties agreement to produce in native format was modified and declined to compel re-production citing the burden and expense (including duplication of time and expense of conducting redactions, for example)
Nature of Case: Breach of contract and claims arising from South Dakota Dealer Protection Act
Electronic Data Involved: ESI produced in hard copy
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.