Key Insight: Court granted motion to conduct pre-service discovery for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of the Doe defendants and, upon the parties agreement, ordered that a third-party expert conduct the discovery
Electronic Data Involved: Identity of Doe defendants
Key Insight: Court granted motion for leave to serve subpoenas on third parties (GoDaddy, Microsoft Office Live, and PayPal) for purposes of obtaining information sufficient to identify and locate suspected copyright infringers but ordered plaintiff to narrow the scope of the subpoenas for the limited purpose of identification
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Information sufficient to identify suspected defendants
Key Insight: Reversing the order of the trial court, the Supreme Court established 5 part test to challenge the issuance of a pretrial subpoena and quashed the subpoenas issued by defendant where, by ordering the relevant individuals to submit their computers to inspection by defendant?s expert, the trial court ?improperly converted the subpoenas into the functional equivalent of search warrants? and where defendant failed to establish any factual basis demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that the emails sought existed or that they contained material evidence
Nature of Case: Criminal
Electronic Data Involved: Emails, Contents of hard drives
Key Insight: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ? 1782, court granted in part plaintiff?s application to conduct discovery in a foreign proceeding and ordered that plaintiff may serve upon Google, Inc. a subpoena seeking the IP address associated with an account from which an allegedly defamatory email was sent, but denied the application to the extent it sought to serve a subpoena for information related to an email sent from a separate account that merely read, ?Have a nice day? and which could not form the basis for a cause of action under the laws of Canda; to the extent the IP addresses for the two email accounts was the same, however, Google would be allowed to disclosure that information
Key Insight: District Court found Magistrate Judge?s decisions denying plaintiff?s motions to compel third-party?s production of forensic image of its computer systems or a report from those systems ?were neither clearly erroneous or contrary to law? where Magistrate denied the motions in light of plaintiffs lack of diligence, contradictory opinions from experts, and factual evidence indicating a minimal amount of relevant data on third-party?s system and where Magistrate was therefore within the scope of her discretion
Nature of Case: Violation of Trade Secrets Act, Computer Fraud Abuse Act and terms of employment contract
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, forensic image of hard drive
Key Insight: In this opinion authored by Magistrate Judge Facciola, the court conducted an analysis of waiver pursuant to FRE 502 and found that the attorney work-product privilege was waived by the inadvertent production of an attorney-prepared memorandum where defendants claimed ?several reviews of the documents?were undertaken? but offered no indication of the methodology used to review documents for privilege ?let alone any explanation of why these efforts were?reasonable in the context of the demands made upon the defendants? and thus failed to meet their burden of proving that the privilege was not waived
Nature of Case: Claims arising from DOC officer’s removal from duty following an altercation with an inmate
Electronic Data Involved: Attorney-prepared memorandum
Key Insight: Reasoning that electronic storage devices ?perform the same function as did a file cabinet in the pre-electronic era? and that they must therefore be searched ?just as they would have had to do had all the information been printed out and stored in hard copy format? and also reasoning that ?[t]he fact that duplicate documents may have been stored and maintained in more than one place is irrelevant to the duty to search all locations,? court ordered respondents to subpoenas to conduct additional searches of all electronic storage devices in their possession at the time of their response; where the sharing of production costs had been ordered, court required requesting party to post $1 million pre-judgment cost bond in light of the ?circumstances of the case? including respondents? expenditure of more than $2.5 million and fears that the requesting party would dispute their share and attempt to avoid payment
Nature of Case: Litigation between an international law firm and a new firm comprised of its former employees related to the new firm?s alleged interference in business relationships and breach of certain duties
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Considering the five factors established in Sony Music Ent. v. Does 1-40, 326 F.Supp.2d 556(S.D.N.Y. 2004) to determine whether an anonymous defendant?s identity is shielded from discovery by the first amendment (in circumstances such as those presented here), court denied a motion to quash the subpoena seeking anonymous defendant?s identity where plaintiffs made a concrete showing of a prima facie claim, where the subpoena was narrowly drawn and sought limited information, where there was no alternate means of identifying the defendant, where the information was necessary to effect service on the defendant and where ?defendant has little expectation of privacy in allegedly distributing music over the internet without permission of the copyright holder?
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Identity of alleged John Doe infringer
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motion to compel compliance with third party subpoena to allow access to the hard drive of the parents of defendant accused of copyright infringement in a music downloading case where parents were not parties to the action and where the computer was purchased after defendant moved out and thus plaintiffs failed to establish likelihood of the discovery of relevant information sufficient to warrant intrusion into parents? privacy
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive belonging to third party
Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel production of third party?s ESI where the court found the data relevant and not duplicative or obtainable through other sources and where the court found the protective order in place (and the court?s invitation to seek additional protection if necessary) provided appropriate protection of the third party?s information
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Third party’s ESI, source code
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.