Motion to Compel – Page 120 – Electronic Discovery Law

Kiliszek v. Nelson, Watson & Assocs., LLC, 2006 WL 335788 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ Rule 56(f) motion to delay adjudication of summary judgment motion to allow further discovery where collection agency did not retain hard copies of collection letters but instead noted the nature and types of letters on a debtor overview report and saved copies of form letters, and where dispute existed over whether an exhibit submitted in support of defendant’s motion was an accurate reproduction of defendant’s initial communication to plaintiff or a fabrication

Nature of Case: Debtor sued collection agency under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Computer record of collection activity and form letters

Madden v. Wyeth, 2006 WL 568015 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court awarded plaintiff $47,970 in sanctions representing attorney’s fees and expenses reasonably incurred in bringing motion to compel discovery of Wyeth’s adverse event database and production of prior versions of certain reports and source documents; court had earlier granted plaintiff and her expert supervised access to defendant’s database

Nature of Case: Drug products liability

Electronic Data Involved: Database and source documents for certain reports

Washburn v. Lavoie, 437 F.3d 84 (D.C. Cir. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Magistrate did not err in refusing to order defendants to produce all emails that mentioned plaintiff or plaintiff’s lawsuit, where magistrate did order defendants to produce the emails for in camera inspection and magistrate’s personal review showed that nearly half were devoid of anything bearing upon the litigation and the other half dealt with irrelevant issues such as the costs of litigation, retention of counsel and the need to answer interrogatories

Nature of Case: Defamation

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Happel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2006 WL 642562 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 8, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where plaintiff alleged that Wal-Mart Pharmacy wrongly filled a prescription for a drug to which she was allergic, and that Wal-Mart’s computer system would have listed plaintiff’s drug allergies, flashed a warning and required further protocols before the drug could be dispensed to plaintiff, court granted motion to compel production of the computer used by the pharmacist (on August 4, 1993) and any reports or logs relating to the computer’s repair, maintenance or malfunction

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Computer used by particular Wal-Mart Pharmacy in 1993 and reports or logs relating to computer’s repair, maintenance or malfunction

Roberts v. Whitfill, 191 S.W.3d 348 (Tex. App. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Reversing plaintiff’s $800,000 jury verdict on other grounds, state appellate court expressed concern about spoliation instruction given by trial court since plaintiff had not pursued motion to compel, there was doubt about the materiality and relevance of the data and how or if its absence seriously impaired plaintiff’s ability to present her case, defendant had provided an explanation for the data’s removal from his computer and had offered to produce at least some of the data in paper form or print specific reports, and spoliation instruction given appeared to be excessive based upon surrounding circumstances and spoliation instructions recently approved by Texas courts

Nature of Case: Former partner alleged antitrust violations, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims

Electronic Data Involved: QuickBooks data

Powertrain, Inc. v. Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. 2006 WL 709784 (N.D. Miss. Mar. 15, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff’s request for Rule 56(f) continuance and dismissed defendant’s motion for summary judgment as premature and with leave to refile once defendant had fulfilled all its discovery obligations, where plaintiff had already filed a number of discovery motions and sought, among other things, “information contained in emails which appear to have been deleted by Honda as part of its corporate policy (and which are the subject of a separate Motion for Order Preserving Electronic Data, to Recover[] Deleted Data and Show Cause which is pending before the magistrate)”

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted email

Wedding & Event Videographers Ass’n Int’l, Inc. v. Videoccasion, Inc., 2006 WL 821809 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where defense counsel withdrew defendants’ objections to plaintiff’s request to inspect, at its expense, defendants’ computers, court denied as moot plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Inspection of Defendants’ Computers, Other Electric Equipment and Electronic Storage Devices and ordered the parties to include a stipulated plan for electronic discovery in their Case Management Report

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, deceptive and unfair business practice, conversion

Electronic Data Involved: Defendants’ computers

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

MicroBrightField, Inc. v. Boehringer, 2006 WL 851825 (D. Vt. Mar. 30, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court ordered: “The parties should also resolve MBF’s request for production of Boehringer’s computers and data storage devices. In the event the parties do not cooperate and resolve the discovery issues, the Court will hold a hearing and require attorneys to be present.”

Nature of Case: Former employer alleged copyright infringement, breach of contract, unauthorized access of its computer system, and misappropriation of trade secrets claims against former employee

Electronic Data Involved: Former employee’s computer and data storage devices

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 to Compel