Motion for Protective Order – Page 23 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Adams Land & Cattle Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2007 WL 4522627 (D. Neb. Dec. 18, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s counsel became aware of mistaken production of privileged email during June deposition but waited until September to contact defense counsel to explain the inadvertent disclosure and request that defendant destroy and agree not to use the email, court applied five-part test and found ?no overriding interest of justice that requires the Court to relieve plaintiff’s counsel of its production errors?

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

G.D. v. Monarch Plastic Surgery, P.A., 2007 WL 201154 (D. Kan. Jan. 24, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel defendants to produce the subject computer for inspection, appointed an expert to conduct the examination whose fees would be shared by the parties, and set out two distinct procedures for production of the computer ? one for reviewing the computer?s hardware, software, and operating system and one for reviewing information stored on the computer

Nature of Case: Plaintiffs claimed defendants wrongfully disclosed plaintiffs’ confidential medical information stored on a computer hard drive by placing the computer on the curb for trash disposal

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive of subject computer

Crutcher v. Fidelity Nat’l Ins. Co., 2007 WL 430655 (E.D. La. Feb. 5, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court declared subpoena invalid because requirements of Rule 26(d) apply to subpoenas issued to non-parties, and parties’ written correspondence did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 26(f) to meet, confer, and develop a discovery plan

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Hurricane damage evaluation materials prepared by third party

Solow v. Aspect Res., LLC, 2007 WL 3256944 (Del. Ch. Oct. 30, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where nonparty merely asserted, without adequate factual support, that compliance with the subpoena would cause it to incur ?significant expenses,? court denied nonparty?s request for costs for time spent by its employees configuring and executing electronic search and by attorneys reviewing results of search

Nature of Case: Breach of limited partnership agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified ESI

ACS Consultant Co., Inc. v. Williams, 2007 WL 674608 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 5, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court quashed subpoena issued by plaintiff directing YAHOO! Inc. to produce all emails sent or received by individual defendant during specific time period in light of privacy and privilege concerns, but advised that plaintiff could obtain a new subpoena that was limited in scope

Nature of Case: Breach of employment agreement and wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Ameridebt, Inc., 2006 WL 618563 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Magistrate denied third party’s motion to stay discovery order requiring him to give permission to Google, Inc. to produce emails from his gmail account, where third party failed to establish any likelihood of success on appeal or that the balance of hardships tipped in his favor; court was “skeptical” of third party’s unsubstantiated arguments that the volume of email was large and that attorney review would be unduly costly, and noted that “email could likely be screened efficiently through the use of electronic search terms that the parties agreed upon”

Nature of Case: Allegations of consumer fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Email in third party’s Google email account

Charles O. Bradley Trust v. Zenith Capital LLC, 2006 WL 798991 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Finding that requested documents were relevant and properly discoverable, court granted motion to compel production of various financial records, including an electronic copy of party’s Quickbooks files, and ordered that the records be produced under protective order in a form agreed to by the parties

Nature of Case: Securities fraud, unfair business practices, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copy of Quickbooks files

MarketRx, Inc. v. Turner, 2006 WL 851930 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. Mar. 31, 2006) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied motion to quash as overbroad plaintiff?s subpoena to current employer of defendant which sought, among other things: documents and information describing any type of work that defendant performed, including solicitations and proposals, all documents and communications (including emails) he sent or received, and every computer or electronic equipment and he touched, including all backups, as well as extensive information about current employer’s practices and policies regarding document retention and computer backup; court further granted motion to compel defendant to produce similar information; parties to observe confidentiality order

Nature of Case: Action by employer against former employee based upon non-competition agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Computer and electronic equipment “touched” by former employee; email

Tag:Motion for Protective Order