Third Party Discovery – Page 20 – Electronic Discovery Law

Psychopathic Records, Inc. v. Anderson, 2008 WL 4852915 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 7, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Good cause existed to grant (in part) plaintiffs? motion for expedited discovery upon third party internet service providers prior to Rule 26(f) conference where plaintiff established direct connection between a particular email address and defendant, where email address was connected to the sale of allegedly infringing goods, and where ?very real danger? existed that ISPs would not preserve the information; court denied motion as to two email addresses where no showing of a connection to defendant or alleged infringement was made

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Integrated Serv. Solutions, Inc. v. Rodman, 2008 WL 4791654 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of search ?hits? from non-party?s laptop where agreed upon neutral third party conducted search, where counsel reviewed hits and concluded none were relevant, and where plaintiff provided no showing of bad faith or indicia of unreliability; court offered plaintiff option to request report indicating methods utilized in search, broad description of documents hit, and confirmation of no evidence of wiping

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer files

Mabe v. Bell, 2008 WL 4911144 (D. Kan. Nov. 13, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied motion for expedited discovery to image defendants? and third parties? computers pursuant to Rule 45 where inspection sought evidence of defamation unrelated to plaintiff?s claims of fraud in connections with the sale of securities and other related fraud

Nature of Case: Securities fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Email, backup tapes, removable storage units

Am. Mfr. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Payton Lane Nursing Home, 2008 WL 5231831 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs? privilege log specified doc type, doc date, bates numbers, author, recipients and a document title but did not sufficiently describe the content of the document, court ordered production of proper log that must ?identify each document with specificity as is need to demonstrate the communication was made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal services and that the communication was intended to be and was kept confidential.?

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email and hard copy communications

Jackson v. AFSCME Local 196, 2008 WL 1848901 (D. Conn. Apr. 25, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where nonparty stated that in-depth electronic search would need to be conducted in order to produce responsive documents, thus resulting in substantial cost to nonparty, court ordered nonparty to provide plaintiff with estimate of cost and explanation of fees, with copy to court, before embarking on search so plaintiff could decide whether she wished nonparty to proceed; court further ruled that plaintiff must pay nonparty’s compilation fees before delivery of documents to plaintiff

Nature of Case: Union member alleged that union breached its duty of fair representation

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified ESI

Mintel Int?l Group, Ltd. v. Neerghen, 2008 WL 4936745 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court declined to compel compliance with subpoena seeking forensic image of third-party competitor?s computer where third party asserted it had no relevant documents on its computers, where an expert?s search confirmed that assertion and where plaintiff failed to establish third party?s possession of documents sought; regarding plaintiff?s claim that defendant?s search was incomplete where it did not include titles or phrases from documents not included in the complaint, court ordered meet and confer regarding supplemental search terms and for third party to allow forensic expert to conduct search

Nature of Case: Violation of Trade Secrets Act, Computer Fraud Abuse Act and terms of employment contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drive

In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to AOL, LLC, 550 F. Supp. 2d 606 (E.D. Va. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: District court upheld magistrate judge’s order quashing State Farm’s subpoena to AOL because: (1) plain language of Electronic Communications Privacy Act prohibited AOL from producing requested email because a civil discovery subpoena was not a disclosure exception under Act; (2) State Farm’s subpoena imposed undue burden because subpoena was overbroad; and (3) court where action was pending was better posed to decide privilege issues

Nature of Case: Former insurance adjusters alleged that State Farm committed fraud in connection with handling of Hurricane Katrina damage claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on AOL’s servers

U.S. v. Treacy, 2008 WL 5062722 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court declined to compel government to undertake ?seemingly redundant and unquestionably burdensome? search of 15 disks in witness?s possession where defendant failed to show that documents on disk materially varied from documents already searched and reviewed by government and where government had produced responsive documents discovered in that search pursuant to Rule 16 obligations

Nature of Case: Securities fraud and conspiracy

Electronic Data Involved: Computer disks

Sprenger v. Rector of Va. Tech, 2008 WL 2465236 (W.D. Va. June 17, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where factual record was sparse and consisted solely of employer’s internet and email use policy, and no information was provided regarding knowledge, implementation, or enforcement of policy, court observed it had facts to determine only one of the four factors set out in In Re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd ., 322 B.R. 247 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005) and found that defendant had failed to meet its burden of demonstrating waiver of marital privilege; court quashed subpoena to plaintiff?s husband?s employer

Nature of Case: Employee alleged civil rights violations and violations of ADA and FMLA

Electronic Data Involved: ?[A]ll electronically stored information on all computers, laptops, PDA’s, portable media or other devices? utilized by plaintiff’s husband at his place of work relating to plaintiff’s claims

Opperman v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5071044 (D.N.J. Nov. 24, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs? request for access to third party?s proprietary software where court determined software and its underlying processes were relevant to plaintiffs? claims and that all less intrusive means to obtain the necessary information had been exhausted; court?s order allowed access to the software by plaintiffs? expert but protected the confidentiality of the information with a protective order that placed limitations on who may access the software and limited the use of the information solely to the litigation

Nature of Case: Challenge to accuracy of insurance company estimates for fire damage

Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary software

Tag:Third Party Discovery