Tag: FRCP 26(c) Protective Orders

1
Kellgren v. Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. (S.D. Cal., 2017)
2
T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., No. C14-01351 RAJ, 2016 WL 1597102 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 20, 2016)
3
Duhigg v. Goodwill Indus., No. 8:15CV91, 2016 WL 4991480 (D. Neb. Sept. 16, 2016)
4
Hallmark v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, NO. 11-CV-842W(F), 2016 WL 1128494 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2016)
5
First Niagara Risk Management, Inc. v. Folino, No. 16-1779 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2016).
6
SEC v. CKB168 Holdings Inc. (E.D.N.Y., 2016)

Kellgren v. Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. (S.D. Cal., 2017)

Key Insight: Discovery request for managers’ text messages was ruled overbroad and not likely to be useful due to store policy that managers only communicate via email or voicemail.

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act dispute

Electronic Data Involved: text messages, email, communication methods the managers could have possibly used

Keywords: Text messages, overbreadth, overbroad, relevance

View Case Opinion

T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., No. C14-01351 RAJ, 2016 WL 1597102 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 20, 2016)

Key Insight: Motion for protective order granted where requested information was not relevant to claims or defenses plead and thus was outside of the scope of discovery

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, database

Duhigg v. Goodwill Indus., No. 8:15CV91, 2016 WL 4991480 (D. Neb. Sept. 16, 2016)

Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiff?s motion to compel the production of emails containing Plaintiff?s name as a search hit and granted in part Defendant?s motion for a protective order where Defendant established that the emails were not reasonably accessible in light of the time and minimum costs of production, estimated at $45,825, and where the court also found they were not proportional to the needs of the case; although the court found Plaintiff?s proposed terms overbroad (her name) the court disagreed with Defendant?s time limitation on its own search for emails where prior discriminatory acts, even if not actionable, could be used as background evidence and ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding appropriate search terms to be used to search the accounts of 3 custodians over a 4 year period

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Hallmark v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, NO. 11-CV-842W(F), 2016 WL 1128494 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2016)

Key Insight: Court denied Defendant?s motion for protective order shifting the costs of producing inaccessible data as part of agreed upon sample set where Defendant failed to adequately establish the justification for cost-shifting by submitting broadly stated affidavit that provided no explanation re: source of affiant?s knowledge of his assertions or any explanation of what the term ?inaccessible? was meant to apply to (e.g., digitized records v. hard copy) and where affiant offered no justification for estimates re: required man hour or hourly rates; court indicated that even if Defendant had established its burden, application of the Zubulake factors re: cost-shifting favored Plaintiff

Nature of Case: FCDPA

 

First Niagara Risk Management, Inc. v. Folino, No. 16-1779 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2016).

Key Insight: Responding party’s ability to choose search methods is not above rule of proportionality.

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty Action

Electronic Data Involved: Personal and business electronic devices

Keywords: “search criteria” “access[ability]” “uncovered evidence” “limit[ing] searches” “shielding” “Sedona”

View Case Opinion

SEC v. CKB168 Holdings Inc. (E.D.N.Y., 2016)

Key Insight: are the defendants acting in bad faith by not confirming that evidence doesn’t exist or was it not preserved, in that case is it sanctionable

Nature of Case: violation of Securities act, violation of the exchange act and rule 10b-5, unregistered securities offerings

Electronic Data Involved: “back office data” information as to whether defendants explored public offering

Keywords: bad faith, sanctions, spoliation, public offering

View Case Opinion

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