Tag:Motion to Compel

1
Moore v. Napolitano, 723 F. Supp. 2d 167 (D.D.C. 2010)
2
Brinckerhoff v. Town of Paradise, 2010 WL 4806966 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2010)
3
Tran v. Sonic Indus. Servs., Inc., 2010 WL 5376348 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 21, 2010)
4
Chevron Corp. v. Stratus Consulting, Inc., 2010 WL 3489922 (D. Colo. Aug. 31, 2010)
5
Irwin v. Onondaga County Res. Recovery Agency, 895 N.Y.S.2d 262 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
6
State v. Durham, 2010 WL 1254355 (Ohio App. Ct. Apr. 1, 2010)
7
Shanahan v. Superior Court, 2010 WL 2840254 (Cal. Ct. App. July 21, 2010)
8
Smith v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2010 WL 4641157 (D. Idaho Nov. 5, 2010)
9
LG Elecs., Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 10 CV 3179, 2010 WL 3075755 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 5, 2010)
10
Smith v. Mpire Holdings, LLC v. 2010 WL 3294184 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 12, 2010)

Moore v. Napolitano, 723 F. Supp. 2d 167 (D.D.C. 2010)

Key Insight: District court upheld sanction precluding defendant from presenting evidence of non-discriminatory reasons for non-promotion upon a prima facie showing of disparate treatment where defendant failed to conduct a reasonable search for responsive paper documents, despite a court order to do so, including providing ?ambiguous and deficient? search instructions to employees; failing to follow up when employees failed to uncover responsive information; and failing to credibly explain defendant?s search efforts, and where the Magistrate Judge properly concluded the sanction was proportional to the offense(s)

Nature of Case: Putative class action for discriminatory non-promotion

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy

Tran v. Sonic Indus. Servs., Inc., 2010 WL 5376348 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 21, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant produced emails in ?approximate-date order,? the court ?agree[d] with Defendants? disjunctive reading of ?or? within Rule 34 that producing documents either in the method kept during the ordinary course of business or organized and labeled into categories corresponding with the request is sufficient to satisfy the rule? and denied plaintiff?s motion to compel re-production according to separate email accounts

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

State v. Durham, 2010 WL 1254355 (Ohio App. Ct. Apr. 1, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant appealed his conviction and argued the State?s failure to preserve videotape depicting a struggle between police and defendant was a violation of due process, court found the videotape was not subject to production pursuant to Brady absent evidence that it contained ?materially exculpatory evidence?, and that absent evidence of bad faith, defendant could not show a due process violation arising from the destruction of ?potentially useful? evidence

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

Shanahan v. Superior Court, 2010 WL 2840254 (Cal. Ct. App. July 21, 2010)

Key Insight: Court ruled against waiver as to privileged documents sent from and stored on deceased employee?s work computer where the employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy under the ?unusual circumstances? presented, including that the employee believed he was permitted to communicate with his attorney via his computer because the attorney was paid for by the company for the purpose of negotiating employee?s employment agreement and because of the failure of the employer?s use policy to expressly negate the expectation of privacy by failing to specifically reference waiver of attorney-client privilege, among other reasons; court also ruled that dissemination of a draft memo to the employee?s secretary did not waive privilege where the secretary was assigned to the employee, frequently edited and printed documents for the employee, and understood that such documents were to be kept confidential

Nature of Case: As executor, widow sued husband’s employer for breach of compensation agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails, ESI

Smith v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2010 WL 4641157 (D. Idaho Nov. 5, 2010)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel ?event description? information contained in defendant?s database to correspond with a previously produced spreadsheet regarding past claims and rejected defendant?s objections of irrelevance and undue burden, particularly in light of testimony which indicated the relative ease of collection and production based on the efforts previously undertaken in creating the related spreadsheet

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI contained in database

LG Elecs., Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 10 CV 3179, 2010 WL 3075755 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 5, 2010)

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel non-party to produce email communications which were in the possession of a party to the action but not subject to production because of party agreement: ?This court will not require Motorola to produce e-mail communications that Vizio and LG purposefully decided not to seek in the underlying lawsuit.?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Smith v. Mpire Holdings, LLC v. 2010 WL 3294184 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 12, 2010)

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel defendants to sign releases authorizing ISPs to disclose ?all account information, electronic data, information and emails associated with numerous internet website domains? where ?given the nature of the transactions? at issue, such information would be likely to involve the confidential matters of numerous third parties and where the court was unable to protect those parties from ?unauthorized disclosure of their confidential records and information?; court analysis included finding that defendants had control of the electronic information in the custody of the ISPs ?because, according to federal statute, they may consent to grant access to their information?

Electronic Data Involved: All account information, electronic data, information and emails associated with numerous internet website domains

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.