Third Party Discovery – Page 17 – Electronic Discovery Law

Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenebaum, , 2009 WL 1651338 (D.R.I. June 10, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

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

Negotiated Data Solutions, LLC v. Dell, Inc., 2009 WL 733876 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

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

Wolfe v. Glasgow, 2009 WL 1956687 (M.D. Fla. July 7, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum to Non-party upon finding the subpoena ?overly broad on its face? where the subpoena failed to describe the documents sought with any particularity and would have essentially required the large third-party corporation ?to search its entire database of records to produce every document which refers or relates in any way to the named defendants and to [a former employee]?

Nature of Case: Discrimination in violation of Fair Housing Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

U.S. v. Weaver, 2009 WL 2163478 (C.D. Ill. July 15, 2009) (Not Reported)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel production of emails stored for less than 181 days in web-based email account pursuant to government?s trial subpoena upon finding that such emails were not stored for purposes of back up protection and thus not in ?electronic storage? pursuant to The Stored Communications Act such that a warrant was required

Nature of Case: Child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Previously opened emails stored for less than 181 days in web-based account

State Farm Ins. Co. v. Policherla, 2009 WL 2170183 (E.D. Mich. July 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied defendants? motion to quash third party subpoena upon finding defendants? could claim no viable privacy interest and thus lacked standing and where plaintiff?s showing of relevance outweighed defendants? claims of harm; court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel claim related information, despite acknowledgement of defendants? burden, where plaintiff established the relevance of such data, but ordered a sampling of the requested data while reserving plaintiff?s prerogative to make a showing that additional disclosure would be productive

Nature of Case: RICO

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Thayer v. Chiczewski, 2009 WL 2957317 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 11, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court ordered third party, AOL, to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for failing to provide a response to defendant?s motion to compel as ordered by the court and gave leave to defendant to commence discovery on AOL?s ability to retrieve requested emails, among other topics, following contradictory representations from AOL and plaintiff regarding the same; court also noted plaintiff?s grant of permission to AOL to produce his emails and that defendant?s subpoena had been appropriately limited as to scope and thus ordered AOL to produce all responsive emails to plaintiff for review prior to production to defendant

Nature of Case: Civil rights action

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Zenith Elecs., Inc. v. Vizio, Inc., 2009 WL 3094889 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of documents by non-party pursuant to subpoena where court determined non-party did not have control of the documents requested because such documents were maintained by foreign parent company and non-party did not have access to them in the ordinary course of business

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, source code

In re: Application of Operadora DB Mexico, S.A. De C.V., 2009 2435750 (M.D. Fla. May 28, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where non-party to international arbitration sought to quash subpoena on grounds including the undue burden of searching for and producing electronic discovery, magistrate judge recommended that electronic data previously produced by non-party in prior litigation should be produced but that the parties should meet and confer regarding the production of additional data and should specifically address including: the medium on which the data was stored, the volume of data, the practicability of searching the data, and the likely costs associated with production

Nature of Case: International arbitration over franchise rights in Mexico

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Whitlow v. Martin, 2009 WL 3381013 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where third-party presented evidence that responding to subpoena would require searching hundreds of locations, would require the restoration of back up tapes, and would take ?over two years to accomplish and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars,? court modified subpoena to narrow scope of the request, but ordered production of relevant documents, ?even if they [were] not reasonably accessible?

Nature of Case: Allegations of wrongful termination in furtherance of political scheme

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Dassault Systemes, S.A. v. Childress, 2009 WL 3602084 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 27, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted leave to serve subpoena to procure computers and documents seized from the defendant despite finding that the items were procured through the coercive powers of the grand jury (and thus subject to stricter showing to compel their discovery) where plaintiff showed the evidence would be otherwise available through civil discovery and where the court could not conceive how such access would reveal anything about the nature, direction or scope of the grand jury?s inquiry

Nature of Case: Copyright and trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Computers

Tag:Third Party Discovery