Tag: Local Rule

1
In re VERP Inv., LLC, 457 S.W.3d 255 (Tex. Ct. App. 2015)
2
Commonwealth v. Mulgrave, 33 N.E.3d 440 (Mass. July 13, 2015)
3
TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc., No. 13-cv-04545-VC (KAW), 2014 WL 5280966 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2014)
4
PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Google Inc., No. C13-01317 EJD (HRL), 2014 WL 4088201 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014)
5
Knoderer v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 06-13-00027-CV, 2014 WL 4699136 (Tex. App. Sep. 19, 2014)
6
Sasol N. Am., Inc. v. Kan. State Inst. for Commercialization, No. 14-mc-218-JWL-KMH, 2014 WL 3894357 (D. Kan. Aug. 8, 2014)
7
McNabb v. City of Overland Park, No. 12-CV-2331 CM/TJJ, 2014 WL 1493124 (D. Kan. Apr. 16, 2014)
8
Design Basics, LLC v. Carhart Lumber Co., No. 8:13CV125, 2014 WL 6669844 (D. Neb. Nov. 24, 2014)
9
FDIC v. Bowden, No. CV413-245, 2014 WL 2548137 (S.D. Ga. June 6, 2014)
10
Farstone Tech., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 8-13-cv-01537-ODW(JEMx), 2014 WL 2865786 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2014)

In re VERP Inv., LLC, 457 S.W.3d 255 (Tex. Ct. App. 2015)

Key Insight: Trial court abused its discretion by ordering forensic examination of landlord?s hard drive where ?[t]he procedural protections identified in In re Weekley Homes require that ?the requesting party must show that the responding party has somehow defaulted in its obligation to search its records and produce the requested data,? and that ?the responding party?s production ?has been inadequate and that a search of the opponent?s [electronic storage device] could recover … relevant materials[],?? where the tenant provided no evidentiary basis for his suspicion that the at-issue invoices were falsified, and where the tenant ?did not put on any evidence demonstrating that the kind of information he sought could be retrieved by the examination ultimately ordered by the trial court and the record [wa]s devoid of any attempt by Nguyen to explain this search methodology except for his counsel?s explanation that the search would attempt to exclude communications with counsel?

Electronic Data Involved: Accounting-related ESI

Commonwealth v. Mulgrave, 33 N.E.3d 440 (Mass. July 13, 2015)

Key Insight: Where murder victim sent text message to son stating that defendant was threatening to kill her and that she was scared and 6 minutes later called 911 to report that defendant was stabbing her, court did not err in allowing text message to son into evidence under the ?spontaneous utterance? exception to the hearsay rule

Nature of Case: Murder

Electronic Data Involved: Text message

TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc., No. 13-cv-04545-VC (KAW), 2014 WL 5280966 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2014)

Key Insight: Magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part plaintiff?s request to compel defendant to produce emails employing particular keywords in Boolean search of five identified custodians, stating that defendant need not run two of the requested searches because they used truncated versions of defendant?s product names — something that was prohibited by the parties? ESI Order barring use of indiscriminate terms, such as the producing company?s name or its product name, unless combined with narrowing search criteria to reduce risk of overproduction; as to third requested search, magistrate judge ordered parties to confer to identify keywords that would remove ?out of office? and other automatic responses from the results, and ordered defendant to produce emails within seven days of parties? agreement

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Google Inc., No. C13-01317 EJD (HRL), 2014 WL 4088201 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014)

Key Insight: Among other rulings on the parties? respective discovery motions, the court: (1) denied plaintiff?s request for an order compelling defendants to produce document retention policies and litigation hold notices issued in the case, because litigation hold notice was protected as attorney-client communication and/or work product and burden of producing requested material, however minimal, outweighed its likely benefit; court noted that plaintiff waited over one year to follow up on particular request, relevance of material to case merits was dubious, and timing of motion following court?s finding that plaintiff had committed spoliation by failing to timely file its litigation hold suggested that plaintiff?s motivation was retaliatory; and (2) denying plaintiff?s request for source code and documents related to newest version of accused product, which version was still in development, since discovery into such material would be premature because an incomplete, non-?live? product cannot be evaluated for infringement in patent litigation

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, litigation hold notice, source code

Sasol N. Am., Inc. v. Kan. State Inst. for Commercialization, No. 14-mc-218-JWL-KMH, 2014 WL 3894357 (D. Kan. Aug. 8, 2014)

Key Insight: Despite fact that plaintiff served all-encompassing subpoena to third parties without first attempting to access the breadth of information from the defendant, in light of nonparty?s unique relationship with defendant in the underlying Texas litigation, the potential for indemnification, its financial interest in the Texas litigation, and nonparty?s repeated (yet unfulfilled) promises to produce responsive material, court determined it was appropriate for nonparty to bear some burden and that limited production was appropriate; court narrowed relevant timeframe for search and ordered nonparty to use search terms proposed by plaintiff and produce its ESI, including emails, attachments, exhibits and word processing documents, which contain those nine search terms

Nature of Case: Subpoena issued in a patent infringement and trade secret case pending in the Southern District of Texas

Electronic Data Involved: Email

McNabb v. City of Overland Park, No. 12-CV-2331 CM/TJJ, 2014 WL 1493124 (D. Kan. Apr. 16, 2014)

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel defendant to produce additional 10,189 responsive emails where plaintiff did not identify any specific discovery request for which she sought to compel production, or any specific objection thereto that she claimed to be invalid, and defendant had already produced five categories of emails totaling over 36,000 documents; court advised that plaintiff must present something more than mere speculation that search of 14 custodians’ email files using 35 proposed search terms was likely to reveal additional responsive emails, and further noted that, on its face, search term list was overly broad and likely to capture many emails having nothing to do with issues in case

Nature of Case: Sexual discrimination, harassment, hostile work environment and retaliation claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Design Basics, LLC v. Carhart Lumber Co., No. 8:13CV125, 2014 WL 6669844 (D. Neb. Nov. 24, 2014)

Key Insight: Where court had previously ruled that, absent an order of the court upon a showing of good cause or stipulation by the parties, a party from whom ESI has been requested shall not be required to search for responsive ESI: (a) from more than 10 key custodians, (b) that was created more than five years before the filing of the lawsuit, (c) from sources that are not reasonably accessible without undue burden or cost, or (d) for more than 160 hours, inclusive of time spent identifying potentially responsive ESI, collecting that ESI, searching that ESI and reviewing that ESI for responsiveness, confidentiality and privilege or work product, and plaintiff subsequently moved to compel additional computer imaging, court balanced Rule 26(b)(2)(B) considerations and, acknowledging that defendant had provided both electronic and paper copies of all blueprints, performed plaintiff?s requested search on the email copied from 11 computers, had invested many hours reviewing thousands of documents for privilege and had offered to produce the non-privileged emails to plaintiff?s counsel for his review and had provided suggested deposition dates for defendant?s president, and noting that plaintiff neither reviewed the email nor deposed anyone notwithstanding that case was more then 18 months old, concluded that requested discovery was not reasonable and proportional to the issues raised in the litigation, denied plaintiff?s motion to compel, granted defendant?s motion for protective order, and ordered parties to complete and file an appended Rule 26(f) Report

Nature of Case: Design misappropriation

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic images of every computer or data storage location used by defendant

Farstone Tech., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 8-13-cv-01537-ODW(JEMx), 2014 WL 2865786 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2014)

Key Insight: Court adopted plaintiff’s source-code printing provision in its entirety, rejecting as too restrictive defendant’s proposed limitations that parties may print only that source code ?necessary? to prepare court filings and pleadings, noting that the “reasonably necessary” standard had solid foundation in district?s model protective order, and rejecting as arbitrary defendant?s proposed numerical restrictions: 30-page threshold beyond which the source code printing would be presumed to be excessive, and a total cap on source code printing at the greater of 250 pages or 10 percent of the source code; court also adopted in full plaintiff?s proposed language regarding the use of source code for depositions

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

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