Tag:Motion to Compel

1
Reino de Espana v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, 2007 WL 210018 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2007)
2
NSB U.S. Sales, Inc. v. Brill, 2007 WL 258181 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2007)
3
G.D. v. Monarch Plastic Surgery, P.A., 2007 WL 201154 (D. Kan. Jan. 24, 2007)
4
Crutcher v. Fidelity Nat’l Ins. Co., 2007 WL 430655 (E.D. La. Feb. 5, 2007)
5
McKenna v. Nestle Purina PetCare Co., 2007 WL 433291 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 5, 2007)
6
Self v. Equilon Enters., LLC, 2007 WL 427964 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 2, 2007)
7
Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2007 WL 708593 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 5, 2007)
8
Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O’ Lakes, Inc., 244 F.R.D. 614 (D. Colo. 2007)
9
Lohmann & Rauscher, Inc. v. YKK (U.S.A.), Inc., 2007 WL 677726 (D. Kan. Mar. 2, 2007)
10
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2007 WL 781648 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 12, 2007)

Reino de Espana v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, 2007 WL 210018 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied Spain’s motion to reconsider November 3, 2006 Opinion and Order rejecting the various reasons offered as support

Nature of Case: Litigation brought by the government of Spain arising from shipping casualty and oil spill

Electronic Data Involved: Email

NSB U.S. Sales, Inc. v. Brill, 2007 WL 258181 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2007)

Key Insight: Defendant?s failure to comply with magistrate?s orders compelling production of email and other responsive documents warranted monetary sanctions as follows: (1) $26,667 for legal fees incurred by plaintiff as result of defendant?s discovery misconduct; (2) separate fine of $25,000 for defendant’s contempt of court orders; and (3) separate fine of $5,000 on defense counsel?s law firm for defense counsel?s role in his client?s actions

Nature of Case: Breach of licensing agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other responsive documents

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

McKenna v. Nestle Purina PetCare Co., 2007 WL 433291 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 5, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied without prejudice plaintiff?s motion for sanctions based upon defendant?s claimed inability to retrieve the contents of plaintiff?s email account, where defendant had identified several older emails at the time of plaintiff?s discharge (to support its termination of plaintiff) but represented in discovery that its employees’ email accounts were overwritten beginning on the eighth day after a message was either sent or received and that no additional emails existed beyond those produced; court suggested that defendant investigate the matter and be prepared, if requested in discovery, to provide a further explanation of the apparent discrepancy between its ability to retrieve emails at the time of plaintiff?s discharge and its current ability to do so

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Self v. Equilon Enters., LLC, 2007 WL 427964 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 2, 2007)

Key Insight: In order issued after parties’ status hearing on production of electronic documents, court recounted history of discovery conferences and orders addressing defendants’ production, including court’s prior order directing defendants to produce all emails tagged by the search term “transfer price” whether deemed relevant or not after completing a privilege review, and concluded that, since plaintiffs had not shown that need for further electronic discovery outweighed burdens and costs of retrieving and producing such information, and had not shown that defendants were withholding or ?cherry picking? relevant emails, plaintiffs would bear the costs of all additional email searches, if any

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2007 WL 708593 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 5, 2007)

Key Insight: Where first tier of discovery showed numerous similarities between certain CAD files, drawing and specifications maintained by the parties, court found that second tier of limited additional discovery was warranted and ordered defendant’s current employer to produce materials relating to four additional projects; court further entered order on parties’ agreement relating to forensic imaging of current employer’s computer servers and desktops at plaintiff’s expense

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

Electronic Data Involved: Computer files

Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O’ Lakes, Inc., 244 F.R.D. 614 (D. Colo. 2007)

Key Insight: Court concluded that defendants’ duty to preserve was triggered by filing of complaint, and not by earlier demand letters that were equivocal and “less than adamant”; court further denied most of the sanctions requested but imposed $5,000 monetary sanction for defendants? failure to preserve hard drives of departed employees and failure to confirm the accuracy and completeness of production; court further rejected plaintiff’s argument that Zubulake V created a new obligation for litigants to conduct “system-wide keyword searches”

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Lohmann & Rauscher, Inc. v. YKK (U.S.A.), Inc., 2007 WL 677726 (D. Kan. Mar. 2, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied discovery motion because counsel’s exchange of emails did not satisfy Rule 37 meet and confer requirement; notwithstanding such denial, court found that defense counsel’s email attaching additional documents and advising that there were no other responsive documents did not satisfy the letter or spirit of court’s prior discovery order or the federal rules; court ordered defendant to prepare written response in accordance with Rule 34(b) and pay sanctions of $500 to plaintiff

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2007 WL 781648 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 12, 2007)

Key Insight: Court awarded $22,371 in sanctions representing plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with earlier motion to compel that court granted on November 14, 2006; court further ordered that plaintiff’s second motion to compel relating to the same issues would be set for hearing

Nature of Case: UCC claims arising from defendant’s Internet-based check service

Electronic Data Involved: Databases

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