Tag:Early Conference/Discovery Plan

1
In re Stern, 321 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. Ct. App. 2010)
2
Trusz v. USB Realty Investors LLC, 2010 WL 3583064 (D. Conn. Sept. 7, 2010)
3
Cornered, Inc. v. Does 1-2177, 2010 WL 4259605 (D.D.C. Oct. 22, 2010)
4
Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-1219, 2010 WL 5422569 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2010)
5
Achte/Neunte Boll Kino Beteiligungs GMBH & Co. v. Does 1-4577, 736 F. Supp. 2d 212 (D.D.C. 2010)
6
Patterson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2009 WL 1107740 (D. Kan. Apr. 23, 2009)
7
Dunkin? Donuts Franchised Rests. LLC v. Grand Cent. Donuts, Inc., 2009 WL 1750348 (E.D.N.Y. June 19, 2009)
8
Siemens Aktiengesellschaft v. Jutai 661 Equipamentos Electronicos, LTDA, 2009 WL 800143 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2009)
9
Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-14, 2008 WL 5350246 (W.D. Va. Dec. 22, 2008)
10
U & I Corp. v. Advanced Med. Design, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 667 (M.D. Fla. 2008)

In re Stern, 321 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. Ct. App. 2010)

Key Insight: On petition for a writ of mandamus, the Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering petitioner to produce communications between himself and nearly forty individuals where such discovery was not narrowly tailored to avoid the inclusion of ?tenuous information irrelevant to the establishment of jurisdiction? (the subject of petitioner?s special appearance) and held that the trial court abused its discretion in appointing a special master to conduct a forensic examination of petitioner?s hard drive where there was no showing that petitioner had defaulted in his discovery obligations, where there was no showing that a search of the hard drive would recover relevant information (particularly in light of petitioner?s use of web-based email), where the special master was appointed without following the procedures called for by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, where the special master?s broad authorization to search the hard drives (including the authority to choose search terms) amounted to an ?impermissible fishing expedition?, and where the trial court required no showing of the feasibility of retrieving the data by the party requesting the search

Nature of Case: Defamation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drive

Trusz v. USB Realty Investors LLC, 2010 WL 3583064 (D. Conn. Sept. 7, 2010)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff accused defendant of a ?document dump? in the wake of its production of 4,004,183 pages of documents and where defendants argued that the high volume was a result of plaintiff?s overbroad discovery requests, the court reasoned that the issue could have been avoided had counsel conferred to refine search terms and ordered the parties to confer in good faith to reach agreement regarding reducing the volume of discovery and that absent agreement, a special master would be appointed

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged concealment of overvaluing real estate investments

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Cornered, Inc. v. Does 1-2177, 2010 WL 4259605 (D.D.C. Oct. 22, 2010)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion for leave to seek discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference for the purpose of identifying the unknown Doe defendants by allowing plaintiff to serve Rule 45 subpoenas on the relevant Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but required the ISPs to provide written notice to the subscribers in question to provide them an opportunity to move to quash

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Names of ISP subscribers

Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-1219, 2010 WL 5422569 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2010)

Key Insight: Court granted motion for expedited discovery to allow plaintiff to serve subpoenas on certain Internet Service Providers to obtain information identifying the Doe Defendants so that plaintiff could complete service of process

Nature of Case: Copyright Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Name of ISP subscriber

Achte/Neunte Boll Kino Beteiligungs GMBH & Co. v. Does 1-4577, 736 F. Supp. 2d 212 (D.D.C. 2010)

Key Insight: Noting that “courts have held that Internet subscribers do not have an expectation of privacy in their subscriber information as they already have conveyed such information to their Internet Service Providers,” court denied motion to quash subpoena seeking identifying information from relevant ISPs

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Names and contact information for ISP subscribers

Patterson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2009 WL 1107740 (D. Kan. Apr. 23, 2009)

Key Insight: Court indicated reluctance to intervene in discovery dispute regarding contents of back up tapes where parties failed to properly confer regarding electronic discovery but, where defendants offered to search back up tapes for relevant emails from two custodians on three specific dates, court ordered the search and prescribed search terms to employ; where the estimated labor to conduct the limited search of the back up tapes would not be excessive or unduly burdensome, court ordered defendant to bear cost

Electronic Data Involved: Back up tapes

Dunkin? Donuts Franchised Rests. LLC v. Grand Cent. Donuts, Inc., 2009 WL 1750348 (E.D.N.Y. June 19, 2009)

Key Insight: Finding the information sought to be ?largely relevant and discoverable,? court granted defendants? motions to compel in part and ordered parties to meet and confer to develop a ?workable search protocol to obtain the information sought by the defendants in light of what was discussed at the motion hearing?; specifically, the court noted that defendants? proposed terms could be ?narrowed temporally? and that the scope of the terms could be tailored to individual employees identified by defendants and ordered defendants to provide plaintiffs with a list of employees whose email they wanted searched and the specific terms to be used for each person

Nature of Case: Action to enforce termination of franchise agreement alleging breach of contract and trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft v. Jutai 661 Equipamentos Electronicos, LTDA, 2009 WL 800143 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2009)

Key Insight: Finding that plaintiff was obligated to produce responsive ESI but was ?not required to conduct an unduly burdensome comprehensive search of its electronic archives,? court ordered parties to meet and confer ?for the purpose of establishing reasonable limitations on the scope of [Plaintiffs?] obligation to produce responsive electronically-stored information, which may include restricting the search to certain? employees and agreeing upon a list of search terms?

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-14, 2008 WL 5350246 (W.D. Va. Dec. 22, 2008)

Key Insight: Where a university responded to a subpoena seeking ?all documents and electronically-stored information relating to the assignment of the IP addresses? of unidentified, suspected copyright infringers by producing file logs identifying the dorm rooms associated with the IP addresses at issue and the MAC addresses of the devices used to access the internet, but where it could not provide the names to which the addresses were assigned because the rooms were shared, court denied motion to compel based on specific language of subpoena but permitted service of a third subpoena specifically seeking names of the residents of each room at issue

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Names of ISP subscribers

U & I Corp. v. Advanced Med. Design, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 667 (M.D. Fla. 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff abused discovery process by, among other things, failing to produce email attachments and belatedly advising defendant and court that certain emails were unrecoverable, court imposed monetary sanctions against plaintiff and granted request for limited inspection of computer hard drives used by certain of plaintiff’s employees to be conducted by independent forensic examiner

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, account stated, open account, and unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives of plaintiff’s employees

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.