Tag:Motion to Compel

1
Glover v. Standard Fed. Bank, 2001 WL 34635710 (D. Minn. Nov. 9, 2001)
2
Long Term Capital Holdings v. United States, 2003 WL 21518555 (D. Conn. May 15, 2003)
3
Samide v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 773 N.Y.S.2d 116 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
4
Ex Parte Wal-Mart, Inc., 809 So.2d 818 (Ala. 2001)
5
Adams v. Dan River Mills, Inc., 54 F.R.D. 220 (W.D. Va. 1972)
6
Cumis Ins. Co. v. Diebold, Inc., 2004 WL 1126173 (E.D. Pa. May 20, 2004)
7
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated June 30, 2003, 770 N.Y.S.2d 568 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003)
8
In re Lowe’s Companies, Inc., 134 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. App. 2004)
9
Santiago v. Miles, 121 F.R.D. 636 (W.D.N.Y. 1988)
10
Wiginton v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 229 F.R.D. 568 (N.D. Ill. 2004)

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

Long Term Capital Holdings v. United States, 2003 WL 21518555 (D. Conn. May 15, 2003)

Key Insight: Court denied government’s motion to compel production of opposing party’s rebuttal expert’s proprietary database since rebuttal expert report complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) and no further disclosures were warranted

Nature of Case: Taxpayer petition for readjustment

Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary database maintained by taxpayer’s rebuttal expert

Samide v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 773 N.Y.S.2d 116 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Key Insight: Court modified prior order directing defendants to produce contents of hard drives for in camera inspection; individual defendants now directed to produce hard copies of all emails relating to allegations against certain individual, including any deleted emails recovered by a qualified expert appointed by the referee supervising the discovery; only those emails that in fact deal with relevant allegations to be turned over to the plaintiff; plaintiff agreed to bear all costs related to recovery of data from hard drive

Nature of Case: Sex discrimination, negligent supervision and breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email and deleted email on hard drives of individual defendants

Adams v. Dan River Mills, Inc., 54 F.R.D. 220 (W.D. Va. 1972)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of defendant’s current computerized master payroll file and all computer print-outs for W-2 forms of defendant’s employees, given accuracy of records and inexpensiveness of production

Nature of Case: Race discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Computerized master payroll file

Cumis Ins. Co. v. Diebold, Inc., 2004 WL 1126173 (E.D. Pa. May 20, 2004)

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to respond to document requests by searching its electronic storage devices and electronic data compilations; plaintiff convinced court that defendant may not have satisfied its discovery obligations by showing that responsive Diebold documents and emails had been obtained from other sources, but had yet to be produced by Diebold itself

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated June 30, 2003, 770 N.Y.S.2d 568 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003)

Key Insight: DA’s application to compel witnesses to answer questions granted: attorney/client privilege did not preclude attorneys representing individuals connected to events surrounding homicide from answering questions about laptop that was instrumentality of crime

Nature of Case: Grand jury proceedings investigating homicide

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

In re Lowe’s Companies, Inc., 134 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. App. 2004)

Key Insight: Trial court’s order requiring witness to bring with her a computer or have access at the time of her deposition to a computer capable of logging onto the database and capable of searching, sorting and printing the data on the computer as requested by plaintiff’s counsel in the deposition was overbroad and vacated; however, witness would be required to testify about database since defendant had failed to establish that database was a trade secret

Nature of Case: Personal injury from falling merchandise

Electronic Data Involved: Database re accidents and injuries occurring at Lowe’s stores

Santiago v. Miles, 121 F.R.D. 636 (W.D.N.Y. 1988)

Key Insight: Motion to compel production of computer printouts denied as to those constituting work product, granted as to those that were not prepared in anticipation of litigation

Nature of Case: Inmates sued for intentional discrimination in assignment of housing, programs, and administration of discipline

Electronic Data Involved: Computer printouts showing analysis of work locations and ethnicity of inmates

Wiginton v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 229 F.R.D. 568 (N.D. Ill. 2004)

Key Insight: Court created its own eight-factor test by adding one more factor to the Zubulake seven-factor test, and determined that cost-shifting was appropriate (responding party 25% and requesting party 75%)

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on backup tapes

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