Tag:Motion to Compel

1
Ryan v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 2006 WL 3497875 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2006)
2
Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. v. DiMartinis, 2006 WL 3240116 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2006) (Unpublished)
3
MarketRx, Inc. v. Turner, 2006 WL 851930 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. Mar. 31, 2006) (Unpublished)
4
Lighthouse Community Church of God v. City of Southfield, 2006 WL 1662615 (E.D. Mich. June 12, 2006)
5
Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 2006 WL 2506771 (D.N.J. Aug. 29, 2006)
6
Reino de Espana v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, 2006 WL 3208579 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2006)
7
Marshall & Swift, L.P. v. Crawford & Co., 2006 WL 319262 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2006)
8
United States ex rel. Fago v. M & T Mortgage Corp., 235 F.R.D. 11 (D.D.C. 2006)
9
Smith v. Clark, 2006 WL 1656485 (S.D. Ga. June 12, 2006)
10
Lewis v. Sch. Dist. #70, 2006 WL 2506465 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2006)

Ryan v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 2006 WL 3497875 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2006)

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to timely disclose that it was withholding certain information from production and defense counsel made representations several times to plaintiff and to court that she had provided full and complete discovery, court: (1) granted motion to compel production of database in hard copy and in electronic form with specific redactions noted and included in revised privilege log; (2) extended discovery cut-off date; and (3) awarded sanctions solely against defense counsel (and not client) for costs of motion

Nature of Case: Fraud and medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. v. DiMartinis, 2006 WL 3240116 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2006) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel production of an exact image of the hard drive of defendant’s personal computer and instead ordered that the examination of and production from defendant’s personal computer proceed on the terms spelled out in defendant’s responses to the motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: PC hard drive

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 Mar. 31, 2006) (Unpublished)

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

Lighthouse Community Church of God v. City of Southfield, 2006 WL 1662615 (E.D. Mich. June 12, 2006)

Key Insight: Denying plaintiff’s request to inspect defendant’s computer system, court ordered defendant to produce all emails in its possession or control that were responsive to particular request for production, or provide a privilege log as to any emails claimed to be privileged; court warned defendants that failure to comply with the order could result in the imposition of “the most drastic sanctions permissible under Rule 37(b)(2), including striking their pleadings, entry of default judgment, and contempt of court sanctions”

Nature of Case: Following city’s issuance of citation for church’s use of building without certificate of occupancy, church asserted various constitutional claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 2006 WL 2506771 (D.N.J. Aug. 29, 2006)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ appeal of magistrate’s order and would permit plaintiffs to raise evidentiary objections to certain evidence at trial, notwithstanding terms of pretrial order which required in limine motions to be filed by certain date, since defendants’ tardy production of hundreds of responsive emails and/or non-compliance with discovery orders made it impossible for plaintiffs to raise those objections as motions in limine

Nature of Case: Beneficiaries of employment benefit health plans asserted class action claims under ERISA

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Reino de Espana v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, 2006 WL 3208579 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2006)

Key Insight: Where Spain failed to place a timely and adequate litigation hold in its agencies and ministries, court found that Spain violated its discovery obligations under the FRCP and observed that relevant email and electronic records probably no longer existed; court granted defendant’s motion to compel and invited defendant to to file an application requesting the relief, remedy, or sanction it deemed appropriate in light of the court?s findings

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

Electronic Data Involved: Email and electronic records

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

United States ex rel. Fago v. M & T Mortgage Corp., 235 F.R.D. 11 (D.D.C. 2006)

Key Insight: Granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion to compel, court ordered defendant to submit a brief showing cause why, if it so contends, it is not capable of pulling names of persons who audited each of the 108 loans from its electronic archives and, if it is capable of so doing, why, if it so contends, the burden of pulling such information would be prohibitive

Nature of Case: Former employee alleged that her former employer violated False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic data and email

Lewis v. Sch. Dist. #70, 2006 WL 2506465 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2006)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to overbroad request for all emails, finding that defendants’ production of all existing emails sent to or from plaintiff, or pertaining to plaintiff’s performance during relevant time period was a reasonable attempt to provide responsive information; court further rejected plaintiff’s motion for an order to show cause regarding possible spoliation, concluding that it was not reasonable for defendants “to have foreseen that all e-mails would be relevant to plaintiff’s situation”

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.