Motion for Protective Order – Page 15 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re Urethane Antitrust Litig., 2010 WL 4226214 (D. Kan. Oct. 21, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs sought a protective order to preclude discovery of a certain category of information, court denied their motion for a myriad of reasons, including rejecting arguments of undue burden and expense where the arguments were ?largely conclusory and unsupported? and where plaintiffs evidence actually established that the discovery could be reasonably undertaken as the result of work done while responding to other requests and reasoned that while responding would ?take time?, it would not be an ?inordinate? amount

Nature of Case: Price fixing, market-allocation conspiracies

Electronic Data Involved: ESI related to criminal investigation of some plaintiffs

Kmart Corp. v. Footstar, Inc., 2010 WL 4512337 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court found the producing party did not take reasonable steps to prevent disclosure and that privilege was therefore waived as to inadvertently produced privileged documents where the number of documents requiring review prior to production was low in light of the public nature of most documents produced at the same time as the inadvertently produced documents, where the alleged time constraints for the relevant review were ?self-imposed? by the producing party, and where despite representations that the materials were reviewed by an attorney who was looking for privileged materials, insufficient facts were offered in support of that contention

Nature of Case: Plaintiff sought indemnification for underlying personal injury suit

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Daugherty v. Murphy, 2010 WL 4877720 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 23, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants established that the requested data extracts proposed by plaintiffs would take 5 months and ?about $100,000? the court granted defendants? motion for a protective order and ordered defendants to execute the data extractions which they had proposed and which they represented would be far less burdensome; court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel defendants? production of ?file layouts? for the purpose of revising their request for data extracts but acknowledged that defendants? failure to previously produce ?file layouts? was a serious issue and its wiliness to address sanctions upon a motion from plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: Data extracts

Lorentz v. Sunshine Health Prods., Inc., 2010 WL 1856265 (S.D. Fla. May 10, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted motion for protective order where plaintiff?s request for inspection of defendants? hard drives was found ?per se overbroad and unduly burdensome when balanced against the need cited? and where plaintiff failed to explain whether a less intrusive option had been attempted, ?as per Rule 34?; despite granting the motion, court noted willingness to entertain a motion to inspect a particular hard drive if provided with a protocol for such inspection indicating a method to protect the non-responsive data

CE Design Ltd. v. Cy?s Crabhouse North, Inc., 2010 WL 3327876 (N.D. Ill Aug. 23, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court vacated prior order designating contents of relevant hard drive confidential where good cause was not established by the proffered reasons for the designation; addressing defendant?s motion to disqualify plaintiff?s counsel and bar its expert for failure to timely supplement discovery by producing a relevant hard drive, the court ruled that defendant failed to offer new information that would justify such a sanction (because this issue was previously considered) where the newly-discovered documents (on the late-produced hard drive) did not change the court?s analysis as to numerosity and certification of the class and where the expert was given the opportunity to supplement his report

Nature of Case: Violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act

In re Sawstop Cases, 2010 WL 2483316 (D. Mass. June 14, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiffs? production of cartridges containing relevant data (?akin to a ?black box??) that were relied upon by their expert in forming his opinions but found both parties proposed protective measures insufficient and ordered defendants to designate an expert or experts to review the cartridges, restricted access to the cartridges to defendants? expert(s) and counsel and their employees ?whose functions required access to the cartridge or cartridge information?, and ordered that each expert sign an agreement that they would not seek to develop technology similar to that at issue

Electronic Data Involved: Cartridge data “akin to a black box”

Jones v. Comsys IT Partners, Inc., 2010 WL 3002083 (W.D.N.C. July 27, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where in response to plaintiff?s motion for a protective order requiring the preservation of relevant emails defendants affirmed they had been preserving relevant evidence and would continue to do so, the court denied plaintiff?s motion as moot

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Jeanes-Kemp, LLC v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 2010 WL 3522028 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 1, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion for protective order as to two inadvertently produced privileged documents where the production was inadvertent, where discovery was reviewed by three attorneys prior to production and thus efforts to prevent disclosure were reasonable, and where upon notice of disclosure, counsel took immediate steps to retrieve the documents; court declined to sanction defense counsel for threatening use of the inadvertently disclosed documents where plaintiff?s motion for protective order was granted and where defendants had not yet had the opportunity to use the documents as threatened

Electronic Data Involved: Inadvertently produced emails

Camesi v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 2010 WL 3718867 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 20, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Stating that ?it is defendant?s responsibility to demonstrate objectively reasonable compliance? with the rules regarding ESI, the court found that defendants had failed to do so and denied their motion for a protective order; granting plaintiff?s motion to compel, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer to identify custodians for the purpose of limited discovery/sampling and to identify search terms to be utilized; court ordered defendants to identify potentially responsive ESI sources and to provide a reasonable description of the information stored therein in compliance with Local Rule 26.2

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

Olem Shoe Corp. v. Wash. Shoe Co., 2010 WL 3981694 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court found no waiver of privilege resulting from commercial copy service?s inadvertent disclosure of privileged materials to plaintiff?s counsel where the disclosure was clearly inadvertent, where reasonable steps were taken to protect the privilege including clear instructions to the copy service and clearly marking the documents as privileged, and where defense counsel acted promptly to rectify the error after learning of the disclosure; court rejected arguments that defense counsel waived privilege by a delay in seeking the documents? return where such delay was directly related to plaintiff?s decision to notify only defense counsel?s paralegal of the disclosure, who inexcusably failed to pass that information on to counsel, and where defense counsel requested the documents? return on the same day he actually learned of the disclosure

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

Tag:Motion for Protective Order