Tag:Third Party Discovery

1
Martinez v. Rycars Constr., LLC, 2010 WL 4117668 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 18, 2010)
2
Cornered, Inc. v. Does 1-2177, 2010 WL 4259605 (D.D.C. Oct. 22, 2010)
3
DeGeer v. Gillis, 2010 WL 5096563 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 8, 2010)
4
Orion Corp. v. Sun Pharm. Idus., Ltd., 2010 WL 686545 (D.N.J. Feb. 22, 2010)
5
Chasten v. Franklin, 2010 WL 4065606 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2010)
6
In re Subpoena to Wisconsin Energy Corp., 2010 WL 715429 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2010)
7
Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., LLC v. Fujitsu, Ltd., 2010 WL 1064429 (D. Utah Mar. 18, 2010)
8
Living Scriptures, Inc. v. Doe(s), 2010 WL 4687679 (D. Utah. Nov. 10, 2010)
9
Universal Del., Inc. v. Comdata Corp., 2010 WL 1381225 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2010)
10
Goshawk Dedicated, Ltd. v. Amer. Viatical Servs., LLC, 2010 WL 5250360 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 4, 2010)

Martinez v. Rycars Constr., LLC, 2010 WL 4117668 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 18, 2010)

Key Insight: Court granted defendant?s motion to quash subpoena to defendant?s telecommunication vendor seeking production of any and all cell phone records, emails, and text messages sent between January 2008 and the present for the purpose of discovering evidence of defendant?s drug use where the request was overly broad and potentially cumulative; court noted that a more targeted request may have been more appropriate but still questioned how the provider would be able to ?sift? the data to identify specifically relevant communications

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Communication data from cell phone service provider

Cornered, Inc. v. Does 1-2177, 2010 WL 4259605 (D.D.C. Oct. 22, 2010)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion for leave to seek discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference for the purpose of identifying the unknown Doe defendants by allowing plaintiff to serve Rule 45 subpoenas on the relevant Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but required the ISPs to provide written notice to the subscribers in question to provide them an opportunity to move to quash

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Names of ISP subscribers

DeGeer v. Gillis, 2010 WL 5096563 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 8, 2010)

Key Insight: Court ordered third-party to conduct additional searching for ESI and for counsel to meet and confer in person to determine the proper scope of the search, search terms, etc. and ordered that the costs of future discovery be split, except with respect to the third party?s search of its former CEO?s data, where that CEO had a practice of deleting email on a daily basis to avoid discovery

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with business expectancy, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, backup tapes

Orion Corp. v. Sun Pharm. Idus., Ltd., 2010 WL 686545 (D.N.J. Feb. 22, 2010)

Key Insight: Court held plaintiff?s and third party?s claims of privilege as to redacted and withheld portions of presentations waived where plaintiff and third party failed to meet their burden of establishing the claim of privilege by failing to establish that all persons to whom the presentation was disseminated or shown were ?individuals who needed to know the information contained in the presentation? as would be required to maintain the privilege

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Presentations

Chasten v. Franklin, 2010 WL 4065606 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2010)

Key Insight: Court quashed subpoena served upon Yahoo! for the production of emails from defendant?s account where the Stored Communications Act generally prohibits such disclosure absent a specifically-enumerated exception and where subpoena in a civil action is not such an exception

Nature of Case: Claims arising from prisoner’s death

Electronic Data Involved: Emails from defendant’s Yahoo! account

In re Subpoena to Wisconsin Energy Corp., 2010 WL 715429 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2010)

Key Insight: Court quashed non-party subpoena upon finding it unduly burdensome where non-party estimated the cost of compliance in excess of $1,000,000 and argued that the information sought was irrelevant and cumulative of information available to the plaintiff from an alternative source

Electronic Data Involved: Stochastic modeling reports

Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., LLC v. Fujitsu, Ltd., 2010 WL 1064429 (D. Utah Mar. 18, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant subpoenaed third parties seeking production of communications between defendant and those third parties from years prior, and where defendant could not produce those communications itself, court found the information relevant and denied third parties? motion to quash but, noting that defendant?s insufficient document retention policies resulted in the need to subpoena the information, court ordered defendant to bear the costs of production

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Living Scriptures, Inc. v. Doe(s), 2010 WL 4687679 (D. Utah. Nov. 10, 2010)

Key Insight: Court granted motion for expedited discovery to discover the identity of the alleged copyright infringers for the purposes of commencing litigation and for seeking a preliminary injunction noting that courts have ?routinely? allowed such discovery and that the information sought was ?transitory in nature? and necessary to initiate the action

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Does’ identities

Universal Del., Inc. v. Comdata Corp., 2010 WL 1381225 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2010)

Key Insight: Where third-party (and former defendant) signed stipulation to preserve and produce ESI as if still a party to the litigation and later sought reimbursement for the review and production of data in a particular database, court ordered a database be created comprised of the four custodians at issue, that plaintiff pay $4085 to the vendor as a ?start-up fee? (pursuant to their agreement to do so), and that plaintiff and third-party split the remaining costs of creating the database, but ordered third-party to bear the costs of its own review prior to production

Nature of Case: Antitrist litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Goshawk Dedicated, Ltd. v. Amer. Viatical Servs., LLC, 2010 WL 5250360 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 4, 2010)

Key Insight: Clarifying the nature of its order regarding costs, court stated that its prior order requiring plaintiff to deposit funds into the court registry sufficient to cover the third party?s anticipated costs of producing ESI specifically excluded attorney?s fees but did not preclude recovery of them, and ordered compliance with its prior order

Nature of Case: Fraud and negligence claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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