Tag:Motion to Compel

1
Am. Mfr. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Payton Lane Nursing Home, 2008 WL 5231831 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2008)
2
Williams v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 2008 WL 192991 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 22, 2008)
3
Kallas v. Carnival Corp., 2008 WL 2222152 (S.D. Fla. May 27, 2008)
4
Kayongo-Male v. S.D. State Univ., 2008 WL 2627699 (D.S.D. July 3, 2008)
5
Gen. Elec. Co. v. SonoSite, Inc., 2008 WL 4062098 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 22, 2008)
6
Verigy US, Inc. v. Mayder, 2008 WL 4786621 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2008) (Not for Citation)
7
U.S. v. Poulin, 592 F. Supp. 2d 137 (D. Me. 2008)
8
Thompson v. Harding Univ., 2007 WL 2081695 (E.D. Ark. July 20,2007)
9
Olah v. Brooklawn Country Club, Inc., 2007 WL 4111410 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 5, 2007)
10
Benton v. Dlorah, Inc., 2007 WL 3231431 (D. Kan. Oct. 30, 2007)

Am. Mfr. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Payton Lane Nursing Home, 2008 WL 5231831 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs? privilege log specified doc type, doc date, bates numbers, author, recipients and a document title but did not sufficiently describe the content of the document, court ordered production of proper log that must ?identify each document with specificity as is need to demonstrate the communication was made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal services and that the communication was intended to be and was kept confidential.?

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email and hard copy communications

Williams v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 2008 WL 192991 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 22, 2008)

Key Insight: Where privilege log entries failed to identify who sent or received documents, disclosed little or no information about actual contents of documents, used boilerplate objections which court had previously ruled were insufficient, and court had previously ordered Taser to provide more information in privilege logs, court concluded that Taser?s unjustified delay in providing a meaningful privilege log was inexcusable, in bad faith and deserving of sanctions; Taser?s assertions of attorney client privilege and work product doctrine were deemed waived and court ordered Taser to produce all documents identified in privilege logs

Nature of Case: Wrongful death

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email and other documents

Kallas v. Carnival Corp., 2008 WL 2222152 (S.D. Fla. May 27, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff supported class certification motion with affidavits prepared by paralegals who conducted interviews with potential class members, court found that such affirmative use of work product opened door to defendant’s attempt to verify accuracy of investigation, to discover flaws, and to obtain if possible information that could impeach paralegals’ testimony; court ordered plaintiff to produce memo to file itemizing questions to be propounded to interviewees, completed form questionnaires with handwritten notations used in survey, and memoranda or handwritten notations generated by affiants during course of survey or thereafter to memorialize factual information obtained; database itself retained work product protection and plaintiff was not required to produce entire printout of database beyond those portions that plaintiffs intended to rely upon and had been produced

Nature of Case: Class action brought by passengers who had suffered symptoms associated with a spread of Norovirus

Electronic Data Involved: Epi Info database, questionnaires and underlying relevant data

Kayongo-Male v. S.D. State Univ., 2008 WL 2627699 (D.S.D. July 3, 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendant argued it produce in hard copy format (Excel spreadsheets) all the information that defense expert relied on in creating his regression models, court ordered defendant to produce raw data in electronic format but denied plaintiff?s request to depose defense expert or persons responsible for compiling the information

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copy of raw, unfiltered data from defendant’s human resource database which defense expert used to conduct regression analysis

Gen. Elec. Co. v. SonoSite, Inc., 2008 WL 4062098 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 22, 2008)

Key Insight: Where both sides argued that the other side had not produced all responsive information and it appeared to court that there were a few places in which parties may not have yet looked, court gave parties one last chance to look for responsive material before it would hold them to their ?the documents don’t exist? positions and warned that lack of diligence or forthrightness would result in sanctions; court further denied plaintiff?s request to modify protective order that required source code be made available on a computer at producing party?s office for viewing by opposing party

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Verigy US, Inc. v. Mayder, 2008 WL 4786621 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2008) (Not for Citation)

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to produce website information because the information was maintained by and in the custody of a third party internet service provider, and because defendant could not access the materials because its account had expired, court acknowledged general rule that ?production is not ordered unless the responding party has exclusive control of the documents? and plaintiff?s failure to subpoena third party directly but nonetheless ordered defendants to ?take all necessary steps to obtain the requested documents? from third party and for the parties to split the cost

Nature of Case: Misappropriate of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Website

U.S. v. Poulin, 592 F. Supp. 2d 137 (D. Me. 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendant?s audio consultant identified potential inaccuracies between the audio tapes produced and the original recordings, and where the original recordings were subject to disclosure pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16, court granted plaintiff?s motion for access to the original Exxacom system recordings ?to confirm that the recordings?are faithful reproductions?; acknowledging defendant?s burden in re-production where many hours had already been spent, court observed, ?The Government?s burden is measured in hours; the Defendant?s in years.?

Nature of Case: Criminal production of child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings

Thompson v. Harding Univ., 2007 WL 2081695 (E.D. Ark. July 20,2007)

Key Insight: Where defendant received from an anonymous source a copy of an email sent by plaintiff which had not been produced by plaintiff in discovery, court denied defendant’s motion for access to plaintiff’s computer but stated that defendant would be permitted to depose plaintiff about items in his possession and items no longer in his possession, and court would be willing to entertain renewed motion depending on the testimony obtained

Nature of Case: Student who was suspended and denied re-admission alleged discrimination claims

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s personal computer

Olah v. Brooklawn Country Club, Inc., 2007 WL 4111410 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 5, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion to compel inspection of plaintiff’s personal computer by defendants’ expert for purpose of retrieving relevant documents and investigating cause of computer crash; court instead ordered plaintiff to produce all relevant documents from the computer, and if documents were unrecoverable, plaintiff must produce an affidavit from a qualified technology expert explaining the reasons for lack of recovery

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Personal computer

Benton v. Dlorah, Inc., 2007 WL 3231431 (D. Kan. Oct. 30, 2007)

Key Insight: Magistrate judge ordered plaintiff to produce responsive emails, and if emails had been deleted, to produce for inspection her computer hard drive from which those emails were sent to allow defendants to use services of computer forensic specialist, if necessary, to retrieve them; request for sanctions denied without prejudice to a further request for a ?negative inference instruction? to be determined by trial judge

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted email, hard drive of plaintiff’s personal computer

Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.