Tag: Motion for Protective Order

1
Allen v. PPE Casino Resorts Maryland, LLC (D. Md. 2021)
2
IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation (D. Arizona, 2020)
3
Allscripts Healthcare, LLC v. DR/Decision Resources, LLC d/b/a Decision Resources Group (District of Massachusetts, 2020)
4
Taylor v. Kilmer (Northern District of Illionis, 2020)
5
Rhino Metals, Inc. v. Sturdy Gun Safe, Inc. (District of Idaho, 2020)
6
Brave Law Firm, LLC v. Truck Accident Lawyers Group, Inc., No. 17-1156-EFM (D. Kan. Sept. 20, 2019).
7
In re Verizon Wireless (D. Md., 2019)
8
True Freight Logistics LLC et al v. Global Tranz Enterprises Incorporated et al (D. Ariz., 2019)
9
Strough v. General Motors, LLC (District of Colorado, 2019)
10
Lotus Indus., LLC v. Archer (E.D. Mich., 2019)

Allen v. PPE Casino Resorts Maryland, LLC (D. Md. 2021)

Key Insight: Plaintiffs sought a protective order to prevent defendant from obtaining ESI from five different social media platforms they were active on. The court found that while a plaintiff’s social media postings could be relevant to a claim for “garden variety” emotional distress damages, some caution was necessary, such that a “deeper dive” into social media postings may be justified only in cases involving “severe and specific emotional distress” allegations. Since plaintiff alleged “garden variety” emotional distress stemming from defendant’s allegedly wrongful conduct, the discovery must be narrowed as follows: “specific references to serious, non-transient emotional distress in connection with the incidents described in their Complaint,” i.e., diagnosable conditions, visits to professionals for treatment of distress, treatment regimens and conversations regarding same; time frame limited from date contained in complaint of onset of difficulties to the date of filing of complaint; production limited to information found in a typical download of data from plaintiffs’ own accounts and plaintiffs “need not engage in extraordinary efforts in obtaining responsive information.”

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Social media posts

Case Summary

Allscripts Healthcare, LLC v. DR/Decision Resources, LLC d/b/a Decision Resources Group (District of Massachusetts, 2020)

Key Insight: enhancement of protective order to ensure heightened confidentiality of one document.

Nature of Case: breach of contract and false and misleading statements

Electronic Data Involved: confidentiality of proprietary aggregate data product

Keywords: protective order, heightened confidentiality

View Case Opinion

Taylor v. Kilmer (Northern District of Illionis, 2020)

Key Insight: argue that those requests and subpoenas are overly broad

Nature of Case: Motor vehicle accident negligence, personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: medical bills, records, and data for treatment received over a year before incident pertaining to rate of reimbursement

Keywords: subpoena, provider billing structure, medical billing and records, overly broad and burdensome

View Case Opinion

Rhino Metals, Inc. v. Sturdy Gun Safe, Inc. (District of Idaho, 2020)

Key Insight: two reports for different suits, written by the same expert. defendants in those cases subpoenaed each other’s report to get it without confidentiality restrictions

Nature of Case: intellectual property infringement

Electronic Data Involved: expert report deemed confidential

Keywords: subpoena, expert report, confidential, privilege, protective order

View Case Opinion

Brave Law Firm, LLC v. Truck Accident Lawyers Group, Inc., No. 17-1156-EFM (D. Kan. Sept. 20, 2019).

Key Insight: Sanctions granted for first claiming withholding all responsive documents, then claiming there were no responsive documents. Protective Order violated by using information obtained under protective order to locate public information.

Nature of Case: false advertising/trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Document related to claimed settlement achieved

Keywords: privilege, sanctions

View Case Opinion

Strough v. General Motors, LLC (District of Colorado, 2019)

Key Insight: protective order without a sharing provision is unfair to future similarily situated plaintiffs.

Nature of Case: product liability

Electronic Data Involved: All relevant discovery

Keywords: protective order, sharing provision, class action, similarly situated plaintiff

View Case Opinion

Lotus Indus., LLC v. Archer (E.D. Mich., 2019)

Key Insight: Whether a subpoenaed third party is entitled to costs and portion of fees before engaging in document processing

Nature of Case: RICO and First Amendment Retaliation

Electronic Data Involved: documents

Keywords: fee shifting, undue burden, costs and fees

View Case Opinion

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