Motion for Protective Order – Page 16 – Electronic Discovery Law

Soc?y of Prof?l Eng?g Employees in Aerospace, IFPTE Local 2001, AFL-CIO v. Boeing Co., 2010 WL 1141269 (D. Kan. Mar. 22, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied Boeing?s motion for protective order requiring the return of the privileged email at issue where the email was disclosed by Boeing to a third-party buyer of its ?commercial facility? when Boeing made a business decision to ease transition to new ownership by temporarily continuing to provide email services to the buyer?s new employees (who were former employee?s of Boeing) by allowing them to use and access their email accounts on Boeing?s servers (which contained the message at issue), and thus did not take reasonable steps to protect the privilege; objections to this opinion were overruled by the District Court Judge on Aug. 5, 2010: 2010 WL 3083536

Nature of Case: Benefits and pension issues arising from sale of commercial facility

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

State v. Johnson, 2010 WL 1424369 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Appellate court affirmed trial court?s dismissal of charges related to defendant?s alleged possession of child pornography where FBI refused to follow the trial court?s order to produce a copy of the relevant hard drive to defendant?s expert, pursuant to the terms of a protective order, and where defendant made a ?substantial showing? that reproduction of the drive was required for the effective investigation of his defense because the FBI?s proffered solution of allowing defendant?s expert to analyze the drive at the FBI?s offices did not properly address defendant?s concerns about the privacy of his expert?s work or the deprivation of the expert?s references and resource which were not available at the proposed location

Nature of Case: Sexual exploitation of a minor

Electronic Data Involved: Hard Drive

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

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Alaujan, 2009 WL 1292977 (D. Mass. May 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant admitted use of a particular computer to share copy written files but was unable to remember relevant details of the file sharing and put the question of the significance and scope of his infringement at issue, court granted plaintiffs? motion to copy and inspect defendant?s computer but ordered very strict protective order in light of defendant?s significant privacy concerns

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic records related to file-sharing software and metadata associated with music files, including deleted files

High Voltage Beverages, LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. 2009 WL 2915026 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant represented that any additional searching would only result in the discovery and production of duplicative documents, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel defendant to search an identified alternative source upon finding ?that requiring defendant to sift sand for documents it has already produced would be unreasonably duplicative of earlier efforts and that the material contained therein is likely available from other sources, to wit, an earlier production of documents?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Richmond v. Coastal Bend Coll. Dist., 2009 WL 1940034 (S.D. Tex. July 2, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted defendants? motion for protective order preventing the production of emails in sealed court file where plaintiffs failed to establish an exception to the Public Information Act requiring their disclosure, where plaintiffs failed to establish defendants? waiver of privilege, and where plaintiffs failed to establish the applicability of the crime fraud exception; court granted plaintiffs? motion to compel certain information, including personal emails, and ordered defendants to submit affidavits indicating their lack of personal accounts, if appropriate, and for defendants to produce emails ?of a personal nature to the court under seal? for a determination of relevance

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

S.E.C. v. Bank of Amer. Corp., 2009 WL 3297493 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court approved stipulated protective order allowing defendant to waive privilege and work product protections as to certain categories of documents without also waving ?such privilege and protection regarding other information that may be of interest in related private lawsuits?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard copy

State v. Bowser, 2009 WL 2308068 (Wis. Ct. App. July 30, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion by denying defendant?s motion for a copy of the hard drive containing incriminating child pornography and granting State?s motion for a protective order requiring defendant?s forensic expert to conduct examination of the hard drive pursuant to Department of Justice protocol which required the examination be undertaken at government offices under strict guidelines intended to prevent further dissemination of the images

Nature of Case: Possession of child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Tag:Motion for Protective Order