Tag:Motion to Compel

1
Sedona Corp. v. Open Solutions, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 19 (D. Conn. 2008)
2
Mich. First Credit Union v. CUMIS Ins. Soc., Inc., 2008 WL 2915077 (E.D. Mich. July 22, 2008)
3
CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 2008 WL 4441920 (N.D. Ga. August 7, 2008)
4
Dong Ah Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. V. Glasforms, Inc., 2008 WL 4786671 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2008)
5
Brokaw v. Salt Lake County, 2008 WL 5449065 (D. Utah Dec. 30, 2008)
6
Am. Express Co. v. Goetz, 515 F.3d 156 (2nd Cir. 2008)
7
Baird v. Dept. of the Army, 517 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
8
Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 2008 WL 2487835 (W.D. Pa. June 16, 2008)
9
Lipari v. U.S. Bancorp, N.A., 2008 WL 2874373 (D. Kan. July 22, 2008)
10
Koosharem Corp. v. Spec Personnel, LLC, 2008 WL 4458864 (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 2008)

Sedona Corp. v. Open Solutions, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 19 (D. Conn. 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff argued that defendant’s search for responsive documents was insufficient insofar as it was limited to search of computers of seven employees listed in defendant’s Rule 26(a) disclosure using five search terms, and defendant represented that: (1) it searched records of employees who were principally involved with project, (2) it used search terms that would reasonably lead to responsive documents without also producing volumes of unrelated documents, (3) in addition to conducting computer-based search, it also asked employees to search their electronic and physical records; (4) there were no other locations where responsive documents might be located; and (5) it did not have any backup tapes to search as its attempts to restore lost data had failed, court found defendant had conducted reasonable search for responsive documents and denied plaintiff?s motion to compel broader search

Nature of Case: Contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 2008 WL 4441920 (N.D. Ga. August 7, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff moved to compel production of essentially every document in defendant?s possession, failed to engage in meaningful meet and confer discussions, repeatedly ?filled the record with invective? and made misrepresentations to court, and where defendant had produced in native format over 1.4 million pages of documents as result of electronic search using plaintiff?s 102 search terms in addition to numerous versions of source code and paper documents, and was in substantial compliance with discovery at time of hearing, and where court had previously imposed cost shifting by ordering production of certain documents contingent upon plaintiff bearing $300,000 of defendant?s privilege review expense, court further ruled that defendant was entitled, under Rule 37(a)(5), to an additional $86,787 representing 75 percent of its attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with the discovery dispute

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Dong Ah Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. V. Glasforms, Inc., 2008 WL 4786671 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to establish custodians? possession of relevant emails beyond speculation or vague assertions, and where responding party already produced ?voluminous amounts of email,? court declined to compel production of emails from either custodian

Nature of Case: Breach of contract (non-conforming goods)

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Brokaw v. Salt Lake County, 2008 WL 5449065 (D. Utah Dec. 30, 2008)

Key Insight: Despite court?s acknowledgment of the requested data?s relevance, plaintiff?s offer to provide a technical expert to perform the search, and plaintiff?s proffer of at least three alternative search protocols, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel a school district to search for specified terms in the databases of all its schools where court found that the proposed discovery imposed an excessive burden due to the district?s lack of technical resources and where plaintiff?s proposals failed to sufficiently lessen that burden

Nature of Case: Complaint alleges unreasonable seizure of high school student and use of excessive force resulting in permanent injuries

Electronic Data Involved: Computer databases at all school’s in district

Baird v. Dept. of the Army, 517 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

Key Insight: Finding that administrative judge abused his discretion in refusing to compel production of relevant email, and given defendant?s ?lax attitude? towards compliance with plaintiff?s discovery requests, court vacated final decision of Board and remanded case to Board, to be remanded to administrative law judge with directions to order defendant to promptly produce all relevant emails and to assure that all relevant personnel either had already, or will promptly, produce all relevant emails; if such production of email resulted in further evidence to support Baird’s theory, administrative judge to afford Baird another hearing

Nature of Case: Civilian employee at Army hospital sought review of Merit Systems Protection Board final decision sustaining her termination for having failed random drug test

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 2008 WL 2487835 (W.D. Pa. June 16, 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendant had produced significant number of requested documents and ESI ?on a rolling basis? but production was still not complete four months past original deadline and defendant claimed its vendor had just provided another 179,180 ESI documents, court struck compromise between respective deadlines urged by parties (August 15 and June 30, 2008) and ordered defendant to complete its production on or before July 23, 2008; court also issued stern warning that it would not hesitate to impose sanctions in the future for any discovery abuses

Nature of Case: Antitrust and unfair competition claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Lipari v. U.S. Bancorp, N.A., 2008 WL 2874373 (D. Kan. July 22, 2008)

Key Insight: Noting that Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) was disjunctive and allowed a party to provide either a copy or description of documents, court found that plaintiff had complied with rule by providing CD containing documents to defendants (regardless of whether document descriptions contained in disclosure statement were insufficient or whether CD was ?searchable?), but directed plaintiff to file supplemental disclosure statement in which he affirmatively states that documents contained on CD were documents he may use to support his claims

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraud, trade secret misappropriation and breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: CD containing documents listed in plaintiff?s Rule 26(a)(1) disclosure statement (consisting of more than 11,000 pages)

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