Motion for Protective Order – Page 23 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Dec 01 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

Garcia v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co. of Am., 2007 WL 3407376 (D. Colo. Nov. 13, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Finding that all emails on DVD appeared to constitute “crucial evidence” in the case, court ordered their production notwithstanding plaintiff’s claimed burden and expense to review them and even though some of them may prove to be irrelevant to the dispute; court rejected plaintiff’s counsel’s claim of technical incompetence, finding that once he was on notice of potential problems he was obligated to seek competent professional assistance to ascertain the truth about the contents of DVD

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleged bad faith breach of insurance agreement

Electronic Data Involved: DVD containing email sent or received by plaintiff through University of Denver email account

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

Dec 01 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

RMS Servs.-USA, Inc. v. Houston, 2007 WL 1058923 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied motion for protective order since record was incomplete, but ordered parties to meet and confer to develop a proposed discovery plan; court set forth specific instructions regarding preservation of documents to be observed by parties until they reached agreement on preservation plan

Electronic Data Involved: Email, hard drives, metadata, and other forms of electronic documents

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

Dec 01 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

Nat’l Council on Compensation Ins., Inc. v. Am. Int’l Group, Inc., 2007 WL 4365372 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 11, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where parties could not agree on terms of protective order to govern exchange of confidential information in discovery and each side had included an “inadvertent production” provision in their respective proposals, court adopted plaintiff’s form of inadvertent production provision, which was consistent with FRCP 26(b)(5)(B); court also adopted two-tiered provision for designating information as “confidential” and “highly confidential–outside counsel’s eyes only”

Nature of Case: RICO and fraud claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Ex parte Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 987 So.2d 1090 (Ala. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: In light of evidence presented by Cooper that burden of producing responsive emails would entail thousands of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars, Alabama Supreme Court granted in part petition for writ of mandamus and instructed trial court to ?specifically address Cooper’s arguments that compliance with the plaintiffs’ request for the discovery of e-mails is unduly burdensome in light of the recent federal guidelines on that subject,? and to enter an appropriate protective order to the extent it found that the production of certain ESI was unduly burdensome; court further opined that trial court should consider the 2006 FRCP amendments and the factors applied in Wiginton v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 229 F.R.D. 568 (N.D. Ill. 2004)

Nature of Case: Defendant tire manufacturer in product liability case petitioned Alabama Supreme Court for writ of mandamus ordering trial court to grant its motion for a protective order limiting discovery

Electronic Data Involved: Emails and other ESI

Advante Int’l Corp. v. Mintel Learning Tech., 2006 WL 3371576 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where defendant demonstrated that serious questions existed both as to the reliability and the completeness of materials produced in discovery by plaintiff, including the possible alteration of email, court concluded that forensic examination of defendant’s hard drives was warranted; court ordered counsel for the parties to meet and confer regarding a protocol for the imaging and subsequent production of responsive documents

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives; email

Marshall & Swift, L.P. v. Crawford & Co., 2006 WL 319262 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court granted defendant’s motion for reconsideration and clarification of order extending discovery cut off, confirming that defendant would be allowed to engage in limited discovery in order to rebut plaintiff’s evidence of software usage documented in plaintiff’s spreadsheets, and to explore the source data for entries on the spreadsheets

Nature of Case: Plaintiff sought damages stemming from defendant’s use of plaintiff’s claims software

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheet

Friedman v. Superior Court, 2006 WL 2497981 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2006) (Not Officially Published)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Finding requests for production too broad and not reasonably particularized, appellate court concluded that trial court had erred in, among other things, not adequately resolving the question of how burdensome compliance with production requests would have proven to nonparties, where nonparties? counsel opined that it would take 5,260 hours to review email, at cost of $1,393,900, and requesting party?s expert estimated only 10 hours for such review; appellate court granted writ and vacated trial court’s orders

Nature of Case: Nonparties sought writ of mandate overturning trial court’s orders granting motion to compel depositions and production of documents pursuant to subpoenas

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Tag:Motion for Protective Order