Tag:Motion for Protective Order

1
Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2007 WL 1308388 (W.D. La. May 1, 2007)
2
Corvello v. New England Gas Co., Inc., 243 F.R.D. 28 (D.R.I. 2007)
3
In re Subpoena to Chronotek Sys., Inc., 2007 WL 2177013 (S.D. Tex. July 27, 2007)
4
Square D Co. v. Scott Elec. Co., 2007 WL 3488809 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 14, 2007)
5
John B. v. Goetz, 2007 WL 4198266 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 26, 2007)
6
John B. v. Goetz, 2007 WL 4014015 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 15, 2007)
7
Garcia v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co. of Am., 2007 WL 3407376 (D. Colo. Nov. 13, 2007)
8
Puckett v. Tandem Staffing Solutions, Inc., 2007 WL 7122747 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 27, 2007)
9
RMS Servs.-USA, Inc. v. Houston, 2007 WL 1058923 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 2007)
10
Member Servs., Inc. v. Sec. Mut. Life Ins., 2007 WL 2907520 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2007)

Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2007 WL 1308388 (W.D. La. May 1, 2007)

Key Insight: District court upheld magistrate judge’s January 22, 2007 memorandum order and related protective order, as such orders were not clearly erroneous or contrary to law

Nature of Case: Design firm sued former vice president under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Former employee’s home computer and new work computer

Corvello v. New England Gas Co., Inc., 243 F.R.D. 28 (D.R.I. 2007)

Key Insight: Court concluded that any privilege that may have attached to documents inadvertently produced on CD was waived, since non-party?s counsel failed to exercise due care when he produced CD without first reviewing it, failed to immediately accept party?s offer to temporarily halt its document review after he was alerted that some of the documents on CD appeared to be internal communications with counsel, and furnished an inadequate privilege log after two-week delay

Nature of Case: Litigation between gas company and landowners

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged documents inadvertently produced on CD

In re Subpoena to Chronotek Sys., Inc., 2007 WL 2177013 (S.D. Tex. July 27, 2007)

Key Insight: Magistrate judge adopted special master’s recommendations regarding motion to compel production of source code, and ordered Chronotek to produce the portions of its source code, if any, that incorporated particular technology subject to an appropriate protective order, or, if source code did not incorporate particular technology at issue, affidavit of knowledgeable person attesting to same

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Square D Co. v. Scott Elec. Co., 2007 WL 3488809 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 14, 2007)

Key Insight: Declining to impose sanctions at this stage of litigation, court reiterated its prior order requiring defendant to submit to a forensic inspection of its computer systems which record its purchases and sales of Square D products and its inventory of such products, with such inspection to be incurred at defendant’s sole expense and cost; court further denied defendant’s motion for protective order for lack of good cause

Nature of Case: Circuit breaker manufacturer alleged that defendants unlawfully imported, distributed, and sold counterfeit Square D products

Electronic Data Involved: Defendant’s computer systems

John B. v. Goetz, 2007 WL 4198266 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 26, 2007)

Key Insight: Where goal of prior discovery orders authorizing immediate forensic copying of computers of defendants’ 50 key custodians by plaintiff?s expert, escorted by United States Marshall, was to protect against defendants? destruction of responsive information in light of defendants? persistent and contumacious refusals to produce ESI, court denied motion for stay of orders pending appeal, finding that the class?s interests far outweighed any potential harm to defendants in the execution of the orders

Nature of Case: Class action on behalf of 550,000 children seeking to enforce their rights under federal law to various medical services

Electronic Data Involved: Computer systems of defendant Tennessee state agencies

John B. v. Goetz, 2007 WL 4014015 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 15, 2007)

Key Insight: Ruling on defense motions for clarification, court directed that plaintiffs? expert and court-appointed monitor shall ?forthwith inspect the State?s computer systems and computers of the fifty (50) key custodians that contain information relevant to this action,? that plaintiffs? expert or his designee ?shall make forensic copies of any computer inspected to ensure the preservation of all existing electronically stored information (?ESI?)?; court further ordered that United States Marshall should accompany the plaintiffs? expert to ?ensure that this Order is fully executed.?

Nature of Case: Class action on behalf of 550,000 children seeking to enforce their rights under federal law to various medical services

Electronic Data Involved: Computer systems of defendant Tennessee state agencies

Puckett v. Tandem Staffing Solutions, Inc., 2007 WL 7122747 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 27, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions but, despite prior production of the information in hard copy, ordered defendant to restore and re-produce information from backup tapes where the information was ?reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence? and where defendant asserted that it?s ?documentation? was maintained in electronic form in the usual course of business, and ordered the parties to split the costs; court declined to compel defendant?s search of computers which ?may or may not have been utilized by plaintiff and his comparators? where requiring a search of an unknown number of computers in various offices with the possibility that no relevant individuals utilized them was unduly burdensome

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes, computers

Member Servs., Inc. v. Sec. Mut. Life Ins., 2007 WL 2907520 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2007)

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to produce highly relevant source code in electronic format subject to protective order in place and agreement by expert that he not share the information with others, including the plaintiffs, notwithstanding prior production in hard copy format

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, unfair trade practices

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.