Motion for Protective Order – Page 16 – Electronic Discovery Law

Response Personnel, Inc. v. Aschenbrenner, 909 N.Y.S.2d 433 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where a lower court denied plaintiff?s motion for a protective order and ordered the production of tax returns and other documents in electronic format at plaintiff?s expense, the appellate court affirmed the denial of the protective order and the order compelling electronic production but found that requiring plaintiff to bear the costs imposed an undue burden where ?generally, the costs of production is borne by the party requesting the production, and the cost of creating electronic documents here would not be inconsequential?

Electronic Data Involved: Tax returns and other documents in electronic form

Robotic Parking Sys., Inc. v. City of Hoboken, 2010 WL 324524 (D.N.J. Jan. 19, 2010) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted intervenor?s motion for a protective order where plaintiff (intervenor?s direct competitor) sought access to defendant?s garage operating computers possibly containing intervenor?s trade secrets but denied request to prevent access entirely where such access was necessary for plaintiff?s case, where there was no showing of irrelevance or burden, and where intervenor?s concerns were ?too speculative to warrant non-disclosure?; court ordered parties to split cost of software necessary for defendant to view forensic images produced by plaintiff where plaintiff sought to use the images at trial, where defendant had no way to view the court ordered production otherwise, and where the parties failed to properly discuss and agree upon discovery issues, including the cost of production, pursuant to local rule

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, source code

Kay Beer Distrib., Inc. v. Energy Brands, Inc., 2009 WL 425821 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of all electronically stored information containing plaintiff?s name where defendants had already produced all email containing plaintiff?s name in the body of the message, where defendants had already expended $40,000 to respond to plaintiff?s requests, and where the court determined the extensive discovery was not warranted in light of its finding that ?the facts needed to support Kay?s claims?are already part of the record or necessarily within Kay?s own knowledge? and the unlikelihood that plaintiff would prevail at summary judgment

Nature of Case: Claims under Wisconsin?s Fair Dealership Law, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, among others

Electronic Data Involved: ESI containing mention of plaintiff

Snoznik v. Jeld-Wen, 259 F.R.D. 217 (W.D.N.C. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where testifying expert created and utilized electronic templates which he considered proprietary to create his report, court granted expert?s motion for a protective order and declined to compel production of the templates upon finding that the templates were not relevant to the actual issues at trial, that the defendant failed to show a need for the templates in light of expert?s production of underlying data used to create his report, that the expert properly sought a protective order to address the issues of confidentiality, and that the potential harm to the expert outweighed the potential (non-existent) harm to defendant

Nature of Case: Negligence, breach of implied warranty and express warranty and loss of consortium

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic templates used to create expert report

Am. Coal Sales Co. v. Nova Scotia Power, Inc., 2009 WL 467576 (S. D. Ohio Feb. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding that Plaintiff ?took reasonable precautions to avoid inadvertent disclosures by having two attorneys review documents prior to production; that inadvertent production of one document out of over 2,000 documents produced does not weigh in favor of waiver; that the extent of the waiver was not great because the document had not worked its way into the fabric of the litigation; that Plaintiff took prompt measures to rectify the disclosure; and that the overriding interests of justice and fairness did not conclusively counsel in favor of waiver,? court granted plaintiff?s motion for a protective order preventing use of inadvertently disclosed email; court found ER 502 applicable, despite application of alternative five-factor test by magistrate, and determined that court?s application of ER 502 did not prevent review of magistrate?s ruling where ER 502 and five-factor test were sufficiently consistent (see FN 1)

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Rohm and Hass, Co. v. Dow Chem., Co., 2009 WL 537195 (Del. Ch. Feb. 26, 2009) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Chancellor denied motion to compel production of Litigation Support Model program designed to assist defendant in settlement analysis where program was prepared in anticipation of litigation and where plaintiff failed to establish necessary showing of substantial need or the inability to obtain the substantial equivalent elsewhere; recognizing sensitive nature of Enterprise Model program used for corporate decision making and strategy, court denied defendants motion for a protective order but ordered plaintiffs to limit disclosure of that material to essential persons and ordered experts to certify their understanding of the limitations of the information?s use and their obligation of confidentiality prior to viewing the information

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Dynamic program models

Boyce & Isley, PLLC v. Cooper, 673 S.E.2d 694 (N.C. App. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where protective order allowed for inspection and identification of documents to be copied and where defendant?s attorney was allowed to inspect documents for such identification and also took notes, including typing portions of those documents into her laptop, appellate court found notes were protected as opinion work product because they would reveal which documents, among thousands, were considered significant to defendants and reversed order of trial court compelling their production

Nature of Case: Defamation

Electronic Data Involved: Attorney’s notes on laptop

In re Search of Kindhearts for Charitable Humanitarian Dev., 594 F. Supp. 855 (N.D. Ohio 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding the restrictions of a protective order preventing defendant?s access to its own electronic materials seized pursuant to a government investigation too onerous and unconstitutional in light of defendants need for access to assist in its defense, and where defendants sought only copies of the material seized such that the originals would remain preserved, court granted defendants motion to vacate or amend the protective order to allow access to the materials but indicated willingness to allow government to justify certain restrictions based on a showing of substantial need

Nature of Case: Challenge to governmental freeze on charity’s assets and seizure of documents and other tangible items pursuant to executive order

Electronic Data Involved: Copies of seized ESI

Dilley v. Metro. Life Ins., Co., 256 F.R.D. 643 (N.D. Cal. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Upon finding that because of the ?relative inaccessibility of the information sought?responding to the request would be overly burdensome? where defendant was unable to query its database for the information requested and upon finding that the information sought would not satisfy plaintiff?s purpose without additional information, court found that defendant had established that ?the significance of the discovery to the issues in the present case is substantially outweighed by the burden? and granted defendant?s motion for a protective order

Nature of Case: Wrongful denial of claim for disability benefits

Electronic Data Involved: Database contents

In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., 2009 WL 959491 (D. Kan. Apr. 3, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied defendants? motion for an order relieving them of their obligation to ?review and log documents created after the commencement of litigation relating to communications with attorneys about this lawsuit,? despite defendants arguments of extreme burden, where defendants offered no case law in support of their position , where not all documents created post litigation and involving an attorney would be protected from production as privileged, and where defendants made no effort to address the lesser burden of reviewing only potentially relevant email; sympathetic to defendants? arguments that logging each message would be burdensome, court permitted defendants to categorically describe privileged communications in log

Electronic Data Involved: Email communications created after commencement of litigation

Tag:Motion for Protective Order