Tag:Third Party Discovery

1
O’Bar v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 2007 WL 1299180 (W.D.N.C. May 2, 2007)
2
Heartland Surgical Specialty Hosp., LLC v. Midwest Div., Inc., 2007 WL 2122437 (D. Kan. July 20, 2007)
3
In re Subpoena to Chronotek Sys., Inc., 2007 WL 2177013 (S.D. Tex. July 27, 2007)
4
In re Seroquel Prods. Liab. Litig., 2007 WL 4287676 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2007)
5
Garcia v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co. of Am., 2007 WL 3407376 (D. Colo. Nov. 13, 2007)
6
Auto. Inspection Servs., Inc. v. Flint Auto Auction, Inc., 2007 WL 3333016 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 9, 2007)
7
Solow v. Aspect Res., LLC, 2007 WL 3256944 (Del. Ch. Oct. 30, 2007)
8
Crutcher v. Fidelity Nat’l Ins. Co., 2007 WL 430655 (E.D. La. Feb. 5, 2007)
9
Guy Chem. Co., Inc. v. Romaco AG, 243 F.R.D. 310 (N.D. Ind. 2007)
10
Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2007 WL 708593 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 5, 2007)

Heartland Surgical Specialty Hosp., LLC v. Midwest Div., Inc., 2007 WL 2122437 (D. Kan. July 20, 2007)

Key Insight: Although court found it “bothersome” that it no attempt at all was made by some of the founders to search, even on a random basis, their personal or office emails, balancing the burden on the founders of conducting full email searches of their non-@hssh.org email accounts against the likelihood that such searches would recover few, if any, additional documents not already produced by Heartland, court declined to require founders to conduct any searches of their personal email accounts in responding to subpoenas

Nature of Case: Antitrust and tortious interference litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Personal email accounts of plaintiff’s founders

In re Subpoena to Chronotek Sys., Inc., 2007 WL 2177013 (S.D. Tex. July 27, 2007)

Key Insight: Magistrate judge adopted special master’s recommendations regarding motion to compel production of source code, and ordered Chronotek to produce the portions of its source code, if any, that incorporated particular technology subject to an appropriate protective order, or, if source code did not incorporate particular technology at issue, affidavit of knowledgeable person attesting to same

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

In re Seroquel Prods. Liab. Litig., 2007 WL 4287676 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2007)

Key Insight: Court rejected non-party’s claim that it was entitled to recover full amount of fees expended to retrieve, identify and review 25 project files sought by plaintiffs (estimated to be $28,950, including $18,750 in attorneys fees for 50 hours of review), since non-party should have reasonably anticipated being involved in the discovery process of subsequent litigation concerning the marketing/prescribing behavior it studied, the cost could be borne by the non-party as overhead, and cost was less than four fifths (4/5) of one percent of the revenue the non-party generated from work on Seroquel products

Nature of Case: Drug product liability class action

Electronic Data Involved: 25 electronically-maintained project files relating to market research that non-party Harris performed on behalf of AstraZeneca with respect to Seroquel

Auto. Inspection Servs., Inc. v. Flint Auto Auction, Inc., 2007 WL 3333016 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 9, 2007)

Key Insight: Though plaintiff?s counsel?s conduct in failing to give notice to defendant prior to executing subpoena and inspecting and copying two laptop computers of non-party was ?a flagrant abuse of the subpoena power and bad faith,? sanction of dismissal was too harsh and court instead imposed “sizeable” monetary sanction

Nature of Case: Breach of licensing agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives of two laptops owned by non-party

Solow v. Aspect Res., LLC, 2007 WL 3256944 (Del. Ch. Oct. 30, 2007)

Key Insight: Where nonparty merely asserted, without adequate factual support, that compliance with the subpoena would cause it to incur ?significant expenses,? court denied nonparty?s request for costs for time spent by its employees configuring and executing electronic search and by attorneys reviewing results of search

Nature of Case: Breach of limited partnership agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified ESI

Crutcher v. Fidelity Nat’l Ins. Co., 2007 WL 430655 (E.D. La. Feb. 5, 2007)

Key Insight: Court declared subpoena invalid because requirements of Rule 26(d) apply to subpoenas issued to non-parties, and parties’ written correspondence did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 26(f) to meet, confer, and develop a discovery plan

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Hurricane damage evaluation materials prepared by third party

Guy Chem. Co., Inc. v. Romaco AG, 243 F.R.D. 310 (N.D. Ind. 2007)

Key Insight: Where non-party used outside computer firm to handle its electronic data and estimated that cost to comply with subpoena would be $7,200, court found that data was “not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost” but ordered production in light of good cause shown, with cost of production to be paid by party who issued subpoena

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Routine business documents stored electronically

Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2007 WL 708593 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 5, 2007)

Key Insight: Where first tier of discovery showed numerous similarities between certain CAD files, drawing and specifications maintained by the parties, court found that second tier of limited additional discovery was warranted and ordered defendant’s current employer to produce materials relating to four additional projects; court further entered order on parties’ agreement relating to forensic imaging of current employer’s computer servers and desktops at plaintiff’s expense

Nature of Case: Design firm sued former vice president under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Computer files

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.