Motion to Compel – Page 123 – Electronic Discovery Law

Yancey v. GMC, 2006 WL 2045894 (N.D. Ohio June 26, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court ordered GM to produce “Kentucky Firefighter” and “Dancing Granny” emails if said emails can currently be found on GM’s email system, but GM would not be required to retrieve the emails from outside sources if they were not in GM’s possession; court further ordered that GM produce at its own expense the hard drives of various GM employees requested by plaintiff

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email and hard drives

Jordan v. Dillards, Inc., 2006 WL 2873472 (D. Kan. Oct. 5, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Defendant’s motion to compel production of plaintiff’s hard drive for inspection denied, since defendant “provided no justification for so broad or invasive a request” and there was no showing that the request was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s hard drive

Flexsys Ams. LP v. Kumho Tire U.S.A., Inc., 2006 WL 3526794 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 6, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: In case where parties disputed whether arbitration agreement applied to plaintiff and motion on the issue was pending, court allowed limited discovery and ordered defendant to choose up to 10 individuals whose files (electronic or otherwise) would be searched for information falling within certain categories

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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

Pure-Flo MPC, LLC v. Bio Fab Techs., Inc., 2006 WL 1389115 (E.D. Wis. May 12, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for accelerated discovery and immediate inspection and copying of defendants’ computers by computer forensic specialist designated by plaintiff, since plaintiff had not yet filed its preliminary injunction motion: ?The Court will not accelerate and expand discovery beyond the parameters annunciated in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure so as to help the parties prepare for an evidentiary hearing that may never take place.?

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email, confidential business information

Collaboration Props., Inc. v. Tandberg ASA, 2006 WL 2398766 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiff to submit amended proposal for protective order governing defendants’ production of source code, to include following items: (1) Defendants to produce a single electronic copy, to be kept either by plaintiff’s attorneys or by plaintiff’s expert; (2) electronic copy to be maintained pursuant to security scheme employed by plaintiff’s expert, as described at oral argument; and (3) Only three hard copies may be made, total

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

S.E.C. v. Brady, 2006 WL 3301865 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court sustained objection to portion of defendant’s subpoena based on undue burden, where potentially responsive electronic data was estimated to be 32,222,000 pages and there were over 226 boxes of hard copy documents, and vast majority of responsive documents were in the possession of the SEC and had either already been produced by the SEC to Brady, or would shortly be produced

Nature of Case: Securities litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email and electronic data

Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 2006 WL 3476735 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where plaintiff provided only partial production and made false representations to court about non-existence of responsive documents, court imposed monetary sanctions and would deem as true certain contentions

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email concerning customer communications

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

New World Sys. Corp. v. Jones, 2006 WL 1234901 (E.D. Mich. May 5, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court set hearing date for plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery and granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion for expedited discovery; plaintiff agreed to allow defense counsel access to laptop computer that individual defendant possessed while in the employ of plaintiff, for the purpose of making a mirror image of the hard drive for examination by a computer forensics expert hired by defendant; court allowed defense counsel 14 days after the hard drive was “mirrored” to conduct expedited discovery subject to confidentiality order agreed to by parties

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, violation of non-compete

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer

Tag:Motion to Compel