Third Party Discovery – Page 18 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Whatman, Inc. v. Davin, 2009 WL 3698390 (D.S.C. Nov. 3, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted Motion to Quash where the court determined that the subpoena was unduly burdensome on the non-party and that ?the discovery sought can be obtained from more reasonable discovery methods, namely pursuit of full responses by the defendants to interrogatories and requests for production along with additional or supplemental examination of the defendants? electronically stored documents?

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, etc.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

United States v. Cinergy, Corp., 2009 WL 6327414 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 10, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Inadvertent production of privileged material by third party pursuant to subpoena waived defendants? privilege protection where third party?s disclosure was found to be tantamount to defendant?s disclosure because of the nature of their relationship and where defense counsel failed to take any steps to prevent the production of privileged materials despite being asked specifically if privilege issues were implicated in the production (to which he answered ?no?) and despite the low volume of materials produced; court noted that although there was no legal obligation for defendants to conduct a post-production review, ?had [they] done so, they might well have noticed the email at issue before Plaintiffs did, and the result in this case might have been different.?

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

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

Viacom Int?l, Inc. v. YouTube Inc., 2009 WL 102808 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted defendants? motion to compel production of third party?s materials related to plaintiffs despite objections where documents sought were relevant and where the alleged burden was insufficient in light of probable reimbursement to third party by plaintiffs, plaintiffs? performance of the necessary privilege review, and third party?s prior success in reducing the volume of responsive documents; where defendants sought third party material unrelated to plaintiffs, court ordered defendants and third party to meet and confer regarding scope of production and ordered defendants to bear the cost; court also ordered meet and confer regarding format of production, including specific consideration of granting defendants access to Kroll database where documents were stored

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

N.A. Rescue Prods., Inc. v. Bound Tree Medical, LLC, 2009 WL 4110889 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 19, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where third party sought sanctions/costs and attorney?s fees for plaintiff?s alleged violation of its obligation to avoid the imposition of undue burden or expense on a non-party following the third party?s expenditure of more than $50,000 in responding to plaintiff?s subopoena (including the cost of converting electronically stored information for review), court denied third party?s motion where plaintiff?s subpoena sought relevant documents within a reasonable time frame and where third party voluntarily complied with the subpoena without conditioning its compliance on reimbursement

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Apotex, Inc., 2009 WL 618243 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Concluding that discovery requests were unduly intrusive and burdensome, court vacated grant of permission to obtain discovery for use in Canadian litigation and quashed the resulting subpoena because responding to the subpoena would require substantial effort on the part of a non-party because of the passage of time, because relevant data was not readily available from a database, as anticipated, due to the organizational structure of the database, and because a privilege review requiring subs6tantial resources would likely need to be undertaken

Nature of Case: Canadian litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from database

Carolina Materials, LLC v. Continental Cas. Co., 2009 WL 4611519 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 1, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel third party examination of plaintiff?s relevant computers and servers but, where one such server contained data belonging to entities not party to the litigation, court granted plaintiff?s motion for a protective order and prohibited defendant from creating a forensic copy of all programs and data on that server and prohibited defendant from viewing the data belonging to the non-parties; court also ordered plaintiff to provide an explanation for the disappearance or destruction of materials that were no longer available for production

Nature of Case: Insurance contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on relevant computers and servers

D.M. v. J.E.M., 873 N.Y.S. 2d 447 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding ?no demonstration of legal prejudice, or that it is unreasonable or burdensome to respondent to be required to execute such an authorization? and ?[i]n aid of the policy of compelling the production of evidence at trial,? court granted petitioner?s motion for order requiring respondent to sign authorization required by Yahoo! to release information related to respondent?s email account; finding the authorization too broad, court dictated revised language to be incorporated prior to signing

Nature of Case: Family offense proceeding alleging father sent mother vulgar messages and made false allegations of child abuse

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Tag:Third Party Discovery