Tag:Motion to Compel

1
Excelligence Learning Corp. v. Oriental Trading Co., 2004 WL 2452834 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2004)
2
Farmers Ins. Co., Inc. v. Peterson, 81 P.3d 659 (Okl. 2003)
3
Felham Enter. (Cayman) Ltd. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 2004 WL 2360159 (E.D. La. Oct. 19, 2004)
4
First USA Bank, N.A. v. Paypal, Inc., 76 Fed.Appx. 935, 2003 WL 22071558 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2003)
5
Fresenius Med. Care Holding Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 224 F.R.D. 644 (N.D. Cal. 2004)
6
In re Gabapentin Patent Litig., 214 F.R.D. 178 (D.N.J. 2003)
7
Gambale v. Deutsche Bank Ag, 2002 WL 31655326 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2002)
8
Georgia Emission Testing Co. v. Reheis, 602 S.E.2d 153 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)
9
Giardina v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2003 WL 1338826 (E.D. La. Mar. 14, 2003)
10
Glover v. Standard Fed. Bank, 2001 WL 34635710 (D. Minn. Nov. 9, 2001)

Excelligence Learning Corp. v. Oriental Trading Co., 2004 WL 2452834 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2004)

Key Insight: Court granted defendant’s motion to compel production where defendant agreed to limit scope of email request; further, court rejected defendant’s undue burden objection to plaintiff’s discovery requests where defense counsel argued that retrieval of responsive information would be time-consuming because it involved cross-referencing many databases and backup tapes, but did not submit the information in the form of a declaration

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets and related torts

Electronic Data Involved: Email; vendor information relating to 278 products

Farmers Ins. Co., Inc. v. Peterson, 81 P.3d 659 (Okl. 2003)

Key Insight: Writ of prohibition issued, vacating lower court’s order requiring defendant to search all of its electronic and hard copy claim files covering three-year period; court suggested alternate approach using statistical sampling technique, but left the particulars of such sampling to parties to litigate in lower court

Nature of Case: Insurance bad faith

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic claim files covering three-year period

Felham Enter. (Cayman) Ltd. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 2004 WL 2360159 (E.D. La. Oct. 19, 2004)

Key Insight: Where defendant did not timely object to document requests and belated privilege log was inadequate, court determined that attorney-client privilege and work product protection had been waived and ordered production

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Insurer’s computerized “Z-note” file contents related to particular claim

First USA Bank, N.A. v. Paypal, Inc., 76 Fed.Appx. 935, 2003 WL 22071558 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2003)

Key Insight: Former CEO of defendant subpoenaed and ordered to appear for deposition and produce his laptop computer for forensic inspection pursuant to court’s approved search protocol; CEO’s appeal of the nonfinal interlocutory order was dismissed

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

Fresenius Med. Care Holding Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 224 F.R.D. 644 (N.D. Cal. 2004)

Key Insight: Magistrate found good cause to grant motion to compel where deponent identified source code in deposition which had not been produced; court ordered defendant to produce sworn declaration setting forth the specific efforts it made to locate responsive documents and either a certification that all documents have been produced, or an explanation of why the documents have not yet been produced

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Gambale v. Deutsche Bank Ag, 2002 WL 31655326 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2002)

Key Insight: Defendants ordered to provide an affidavit explaining steps taken to search paper and electronic files for responsive documents and feasibility and cost of retrieving certain emails. Plaintiff would then have option of consenting to protocol set forth in Rowe Entertainment as modified by Murphy Oil, or arguing for different protocol by conferring with defendant and submitting a joint letter outlining parties’ respective positions on the issue

Nature of Case: Gender discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email and electronic files

Georgia Emission Testing Co. v. Reheis, 602 S.E.2d 153 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)

Key Insight: Trial court abused its discretion in ordering parties to share costs of requested discovery equally, and should have ordered the requesting party to bear full cost where requested information should have been available in the requesting party?s own records, and the request involved the creation of a report that otherwise did not exist, and had to be specially created by a nonparty contractor at significant cost

Nature of Case: Suit to recover fees improperly assessed pursuant to Motor Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance Act

Electronic Data Involved: Special report extracted from massive database of information

Giardina v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2003 WL 1338826 (E.D. La. Mar. 14, 2003)

Key Insight: Magistrate’s order granting plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery and awarding attorneys’ fees upheld; employer required to provide available data and also respond by stating the steps taken to obtain non-work related internet sites accessed during the dates requested, including detailed explanation of efforts to obtain information and reasons its efforts were not successful if it was unable to obtain the data to fully respond to interrogatory

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Information re all non-work related internet sites accessed on certain of employer’s computers during relevant period

Glover v. Standard Fed. Bank, 2001 WL 34635710 (D. Minn. Nov. 9, 2001)

Key Insight: Where evidence showed there was no feasible and economic electronic means by which certain data could be produced, court ruled that, to the extent defendants intended to introduce evidence related to such data at trial, defendants would be required to produce all such evidence, documentary, electronic or otherwise, upon which they intend to rely

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: Information regarding damages, offsets and class member eligibility

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