Tag: Third Party Discovery

1
Calhoun v. Google LLC (N.D. Cal. 2022)
2
Laub v. Horbaczewski (C.D. Cal. 2020)
3
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Obhof (6th Circuit, 2020)
4
United States v. Hoang, No. 2:17-cr-0444-TC (District of Utah, Central Division, 2019)
5
In re Petrobras Sec. Litig., No. 14-cv-9662 (United States District Court Souther District of New York, 2019)
6
Lotus Indus., LLC v. Archer (E.D. Mich., 2019)
7
Shamrock-Shamrock, Inc. v. Remark (Florida, 2019)
8
U.S. v. Therrien, No. 2:19-cr-00085 (D. Vt. Mar. 13, 2019).
9
Katz et al. v. Liberty Power Corp., LLC et al. – 18-cv-10506-ADB (District of Mass. , 2019)
10
Vasquez-Santos V. Mathew (N.Y. App. Div. , 2019)

Calhoun v. Google LLC (N.D. Cal. 2022)

Key Insight: This matter relates to the court’s order to compel and order to show cause as to why Google should not be sanctioned for interfering with the production of third-party Ernst & Young (E&Y) documents ordered by the court. Plaintiff subpoenaed E&Y for documents relating to the valuation of certain user information. Google moved for a protective order and the court granted in part and denied in part the motion, narrowly tailoring the allowed requests. E&Y then identified 6,322 responsive documents and Google reviewed and deselected 6,232 documents on the basis of relevance, resulting in E&Y’s production of 90 documents. Google maintains it was justified in working with E&Y to cull irrelevant documents from the final production. The court noted: “Googles proffered ‘justification,’ primarily that the documents reflect highly confidential financial information not relevant to the claims in suit, was heard and rejected by this Court twice.” The court ordered Google to pay plaintiff’s fees and costs for having to bring the motion to compel.

Nature of Case: Data Privacy Class Action

Electronic Data Involved: Financial documents

Case Summary

Laub v. Horbaczewski (C.D. Cal. 2020)

Key Insight: Plaintiffs sought Slack messages and defendants claimed they did not have access to the messages because of its level of Slack plan. The court instructed plaintiffs to pursue the Slack messages through a third party subpoena and defendants objected to the overbroad scope of the subpoena. The court concluded plaintiffs “credibly argued” that the Slack messages “may be relevant to the issues involved in this case,” but found that the request was not proportional to the needs of the case under the second prong of Rule 26(b)(1) because: (1) The defendants did not have access to the messages and requiring them to produce the messages would impose an undue burden and expense, and (2) the messages would likely be cumulative because the record was “replete with evidence of Plaintiffs’ involvement” and plaintiffs “offer no evidence that the private messages contain any novel or noteworthy information that warrant compelling their production.”

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Instant messages

Case Summary

Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Obhof (6th Circuit, 2020)

Key Insight: third parties want the court to investigate all of the people that had access to discovery materials and assure that they are destroyed for fear of future litigation or political liability

Nature of Case: gerrymandering

Electronic Data Involved: discovery that had been produced

Keywords: preserving confidentiality of information, public accessibility

View Case Opinion

United States v. Hoang, No. 2:17-cr-0444-TC (District of Utah, Central Division, 2019)

Key Insight: Request for email accounts at Comcast and Google

Nature of Case: Trade Secret Theft

Electronic Data Involved: archived e-mail, file backups, electronic files

Keywords: no privacy interest in [another person?s] email account, even if some of [defendant?s] emails were discovered there.

Lotus Indus., LLC v. Archer (E.D. Mich., 2019)

Key Insight: Whether a subpoenaed third party is entitled to costs and portion of fees before engaging in document processing

Nature of Case: RICO and First Amendment Retaliation

Electronic Data Involved: documents

Keywords: fee shifting, undue burden, costs and fees

View Case Opinion

Shamrock-Shamrock, Inc. v. Remark (Florida, 2019)

Key Insight: Non party third parties do not have a duty to preserve in anticipation of litigation.

Nature of Case: Spoliation (property rezoning)

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

Keywords: Preservation, spoliation, third-party, Shamrock

Identified State Rule(s): 440.39(7)

View Case Opinion

U.S. v. Therrien, No. 2:19-cr-00085 (D. Vt. Mar. 13, 2019).

Key Insight: contention that personal information was improperly subpoenaed (without a search warrant) from Google in violation of 4th amendment. Third party doctrine.

Nature of Case: transport of child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: google subscriber information, IP address information

Keywords: motion to suppress, warrantless searches, “special solicitude for location information,” no reasonable expectation of privacy

Katz et al. v. Liberty Power Corp., LLC et al. – 18-cv-10506-ADB (District of Mass. , 2019)

Key Insight: whether discovery can be bifurcated for the purpose of a dispositive motion and third party discovery

Nature of Case: Violation of the Telephone Consumer protection Act of 1991.

Electronic Data Involved: bifurcated discovery, emails, third party telephone records

Keywords: bifurcated discovery, class discovery, stayed discovery,

View Case Opinion

Vasquez-Santos V. Mathew (N.Y. App. Div. , 2019)

Key Insight: whether social media photos or videos where the party is tagged can be discoverable with limitations

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: social media photographs, social media private access

Keywords: tagged, social media access, alleged restriction or disability, photo, basketball, car accident

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.