Tag:Motion to Compel

1
Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 2006 WL 2506771 (D.N.J. Aug. 29, 2006)
2
Lewis v. Sch. Dist. #70, 2006 WL 2506465 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2006)
3
OKI Am., Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 2006 WL 2547464 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2006)
4
Arista Records, LLC v. Tschirhart, 2006 WL 2728927 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2006)
5
Plasse v. Tyco Elecs. Corp., 448 F. Supp. 2d 302 (D. Mass. 2006)
6
Patmont Motor Werks, Inc. v. CSK Auto Inc., 2006 WL 2591042 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2006)
7
Bank One, N.A. v. Echo Acceptance Corp., 2006 WL 2564262 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 1, 2006)
8
United States ex rel. Englund v. Los Angeles County, 2006 WL 1490641 (E.D. Cal. May 26, 2006)
9
Malletier v. Dooney & Burke, Inc., 2006 WL 2109472 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2006)
10
Kay S. v. Mark S., 142 P.3d 249 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006)

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

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

OKI Am., Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 2006 WL 2547464 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2006)

Key Insight: Court denied party’s motion to compel financial data in searchable electronic format in part because moving party had itself refused to produce its financials in searchable electronic format

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Financial materials produced on CD in unsearchable “TIFF” format

Arista Records, LLC v. Tschirhart, 2006 WL 2728927 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2006)

Key Insight: Court entered default judgment as discovery sanction where forensic evidence showed that defendant deliberately used ?wiping? software to permanently remove data from her hard drive and stated: “The sanction in the present case is to deter other defendants in similar cases from attempting to destroy or conceal evidence of their wrongdoing.”

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Patmont Motor Werks, Inc. v. CSK Auto Inc., 2006 WL 2591042 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2006)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s renewed motion for sanctions where plaintiff had failed to satisfy local meet and confer requirement; parties had previously engaged in meet and confer during recess and agreed on search methodology for responsive documents and emails

Nature of Case: Trademark and copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheet; email

Bank One, N.A. v. Echo Acceptance Corp., 2006 WL 2564262 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 1, 2006)

Key Insight: Court ordered that, to the extent the information kept in database was not duplicative of hard copy complaints produced, defendants must produce customer dispute information (including related information dealing with investigations and results) available through defendants’ computer databases dealing with disputes by certain consumers

Nature of Case: Breach of indemnification agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Databases used to manage customer accounts

United States ex rel. Englund v. Los Angeles County, 2006 WL 1490641 (E.D. Cal. May 26, 2006)

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to complete a diligent search of all documents subject to its control, including electronic documents, and to produce all documents by certain date; court further ordered defendant to certify, in writing, that it had performed a diligent search, including of its electronic files, to locate documents responsive to plaintiff’s document requests

Nature of Case: False Claim Act

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

Malletier v. Dooney & Burke, Inc., 2006 WL 2109472 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2006)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought a fuller production of email communications from the servers of a wide variety of DB personnel, and DB represented that it searched all pertinent email files and had no other responsive emails, court ruled: “Under these circumstances, the only avenue open to [plaintiff] on this matter is to pursue the question of the scope of e-mail use and retention through depositions.”

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Kay S. v. Mark S., 142 P.3d 249 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006)

Key Insight: Appellate court found there was appearance of impropriety which warranted trial judge’s disqualification; on remand, new judge to consider, among other things, mother’s request for production of hard drive from father’s work computer

Nature of Case: Divorce proceedings

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

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