Tag: FRCP 37(a)(1)

1
Jordan Khan Music Co. v. Taglioli (E.D. Tex. 2022)
2
Federal Trade Commission v. American Screening, LLC (E.D. Mo. 2021)
3
Oppenheimer v. Episcopal Communicators, Inc. (W.D. N.C. 2020)
4
Maurice v. Allstate Insurance Co. (W.D. Wash. 2020)

Jordan Khan Music Co. v. Taglioli (E.D. Tex. 2022)

Key Insight: Plaintiffs moved to compel the forensic examination of defendants’ devices and data storage for imaging and inspection, along with their licenses for all software used for their businesses. Plaintiffs claimed the discovery was relevant to their RICO claim, alleging continued criminal copyright infringement of unlicensed software as a predicate act. Defendants claimed forensic examination would be vastly disproportionate to the issue. The court agreed with defendants and denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel, finding the forensic examination would allow plaintiffs to become privy to information beyond the scope of audio software and they could engage in the discovery process in a less invasive but still worthwhile manner. Accordingly, the court ordered that defendant revise their boilerplate objections and respond to plaintiffs discovery requests to identify computers, storage mediums and software used in Defendants’ business within a specific time frame.

Nature of Case: Trademark Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic Devices, Computers, Software

Case Summary

Federal Trade Commission v. American Screening, LLC (E.D. Mo. 2021)

Key Insight: Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendants to produce internal emails in litigation over false advertising and the FTC Act; Defendants had previously objected to Plaintiff’s discovery requests without disclosing if responsive materials were withheld on the basis of their objections. Defendants responded that use of 58 search terms provided by Plaintiff yielded over 7,000,000 results, and that Plaintiff’s request(s) were overbroad, irrelevant, vague, ambiguous and burdensome. The Court rejects these assertions, granting Plaintiff’s Motion and holding that Defendants must search for and produce the information sought by Plaintiff.

Nature of Case: Antitrust, False Advertising, Consumer Protection

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Case Summary

Oppenheimer v. Episcopal Communicators, Inc. (W.D. N.C. 2020)

Key Insight: The litigation was over Defendant’s purported copyright infringement due to Defendant’s publishing of a copyrighted photograph on its website. Defendant served its first discovery requests on Plaintiff; Plaintiff provided an untimely response with a number of objections including attorney-client privilege (without a privilege log), and “boilerplate objections”. Defendant filed a Motion to Compel, which was granted. Plaintiff provided a supplemental response, however, Defendant filed an additional Motion to Compel, and also sought attorney’s fees for the Motion. Besides privilege, at issue was Plaintiff’s objection to the proportionality of Defendant’s discovery requests.

The Court did not find Plaintiff’s “boilerplate objections”, including proportionality, persuasive. And found that they lack specificity and/or merit. Plaintiff’s objection(s) of confidentiality on the grounds of settlement, proprietary business information was rejected. Similarly, the Court rejected the Plaintiff’s privilege objection(s) due to Plaintiff’s failure to provide a privilege log.

In summary, the Court found that Plaintiff’s assertion of boilerplate objections (and failure to provide a privilege log) consisted of grounds overruling all of his objections. The Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Compel, and similarly, ordered Defendant to provide it an estimate of the attorney’s fees spent on the Motion (for the purpose of awarding Defendant attorney’s fees).

Nature of Case: Intellectual Property, Copyright Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Digital Photograph

Case Summary

Maurice v. Allstate Insurance Co. (W.D. Wash. 2020)

Key Insight: Defendant had a Motion to Compel Plaintiff to produce information and documents regarding physical and emotional injuries that she purportedly sustained during the accidents giving rise to litigation.

Among the information sought by Defendant were documents and information regarding the negative impact a motor vehicle accident on her social life, hobbies and activities. This included communications, emails, text messages, photographs, video and Facebook posts. Defendant’s Motion was granted, however, Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees and expenses was denied.

Nature of Case: Insurance Contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, Text Messages, Photographs, Video and Facebook Posts

Case Summary

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