Tag:Motion for Protective Order

1
Concerned Citizens of Belle Haven v. Belle Haven Club, 223 F.R.D. 39 (D. Conn. 2004)
2
OpenTV v. Liberate Tech., 219 F.R.D. 474 (N.D. Cal. 2003)
3
Cummings v. Gen. Motors Corp., 365 F.3d 944 (10th Cir. 2004)
4
Portis v. City of Chicago, 2004 WL 2812084 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 7, 2004)
5
Dikeman v. Mary A. Stearns, P.C., 560 S.E.2d 115 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)
6
Rowe Entm?t, Inc. v. William Morris Agency, Inc., 2002 WL 975713 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2002)
7
Excelligence Learning Corp. v. Oriental Trading Co., 2004 WL 2452834 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2004)
8
Sempra Energy Trading Corp. v. Brown, 2004 WL 2714404 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2004)

Concerned Citizens of Belle Haven v. Belle Haven Club, 223 F.R.D. 39 (D. Conn. 2004)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendants to respond to interrogatories and requests for admissions relating to database compiled by plaintiffs that contained factual information as property address, owners, purchase dates, dates of club membership, and religious affiliation

Nature of Case: Property owners sued yacht club alleging discriminatory practices

Electronic Data Involved: Database

OpenTV v. Liberate Tech., 219 F.R.D. 474 (N.D. Cal. 2003)

Key Insight: Applying Zubulake balancing test, court ordered parties to share equally the cost of extracting source code from defendant’s database; however, defendant solely to bear cost of copying source code for production once it is extracted

Nature of Case: Infringement action

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Cummings v. Gen. Motors Corp., 365 F.3d 944 (10th Cir. 2004)

Key Insight: No abuse of discretion to deny motion to compel access to GM’s databases and grant protective order to GM where plaintiffs’ proposed computer database searches were overly broad in scope, duplicative of prior requests and unduly burdensome

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Portis v. City of Chicago, 2004 WL 2812084 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 7, 2004)

Key Insight: Court clarified its July 7, 2004 order and explained how it intended the costs of compiling the database would be calculated: the number of hours plaintiffs’ computer expert and the paralegals spent on the project, multiplied by their respective hourly billing rates, plus other costs, if any; court quashed defendants’ discovery requests seeking information regarding the salaries paid to computer expert and the paralegals

Nature of Case: Class action for civil rights violations

Electronic Data Involved: Database compiled at direction of plaintiffs’ attorneys

Dikeman v. Mary A. Stearns, P.C., 560 S.E.2d 115 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)

Key Insight: Former client’s discovery requests, including request for hard drives of lawyer’s computers that had generated documents pertaining to client, were overbroad, oppressive and annoying

Nature of Case: Fee dispute between lawyer and former client

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive

Rowe Entm?t, Inc. v. William Morris Agency, Inc., 2002 WL 975713 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2002)

Key Insight: District judge upheld magistrate’s decision

Nature of Case: Concert promoters sued booking agencies and other promoters for discriminatory and anti-competitive practices

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on backup tapes and hard drives

Excelligence Learning Corp. v. Oriental Trading Co., 2004 WL 2452834 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2004)

Key Insight: Court granted defendant’s motion to compel production where defendant agreed to limit scope of email request; further, court rejected defendant’s undue burden objection to plaintiff’s discovery requests where defense counsel argued that retrieval of responsive information would be time-consuming because it involved cross-referencing many databases and backup tapes, but did not submit the information in the form of a declaration

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets and related torts

Electronic Data Involved: Email; vendor information relating to 278 products

Sempra Energy Trading Corp. v. Brown, 2004 WL 2714404 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2004)

Key Insight: Claiming that it had already spent approximately $1.4 million to restore, review and produce email, and may have to expend as much as $3 million more in order to complete the document review and production, nonparty unsuccessfully attempted to avoid compliance with discovery orders in state proceeding by seeking injunctive and declaratory relief in federal court

Nature of Case: Action for declaratory and injunctive relief

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on backup tapes

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.