Tag:Third Party Discovery

1
Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2006 WL 2668843 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 15, 2006)
2
Friedman v. Superior Court, 2006 WL 2497981 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2006) (Not Officially Published)
3
S.E.C. v. Brady, 2006 WL 3301865 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 2006)
4
Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Ameridebt, Inc., 2006 WL 618563 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2006)
5
MarketRx, Inc. v. Turner, 2006 WL 851930 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. Mar. 31, 2006) (Unpublished)
6
In re Natural Gas Commodity Litig., 2005 WL 3036505 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2005)
7
Galvin v. Gillette Co., 2005 WL 1155253 (Mass. Super. Apr. 28, 2005)
8
Centurion Indus., Inc. v. Warren Steurer & Assocs., 665 F.2d 323 (10th Cir. 1981)
9
City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 222 F.R.D. 51 (E.D.N.Y. 2004)
10
Dow Chem. Co. v. Allen, 672 F.2d 1262 (7th Cir. 1982)

Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2006 WL 2668843 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 15, 2006)

Key Insight: Court narrowed subpoena to defendant’s new employer, setting out “tiered discovery” process: plaintiff was to identify at least one project involving files allegedly removed from disputed laptop; new employer would then search for documents and/or files of the type described that were related to that project and produce them; if any of the produced documents and/or files were shown to be relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, then the parties would proceed to the ?second tier? of discovery and plaintiff could then request documents related to other projects; if no responsive documents could be found with respect to the first identified projects, however, plaintiff would be required to make a sufficient showing to the court as to why discovery should proceed further

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

Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary business and technological data

Friedman v. Superior Court, 2006 WL 2497981 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2006) (Not Officially Published)

Key Insight: Finding requests for production too broad and not reasonably particularized, appellate court concluded that trial court had erred in, among other things, not adequately resolving the question of how burdensome compliance with production requests would have proven to nonparties, where nonparties? counsel opined that it would take 5,260 hours to review email, at cost of $1,393,900, and requesting party?s expert estimated only 10 hours for such review; appellate court granted writ and vacated trial court’s orders

Nature of Case: Nonparties sought writ of mandate overturning trial court’s orders granting motion to compel depositions and production of documents pursuant to subpoenas

Electronic Data Involved: Email

S.E.C. v. Brady, 2006 WL 3301865 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 2006)

Key Insight: Court sustained objection to portion of defendant’s subpoena based on undue burden, where potentially responsive electronic data was estimated to be 32,222,000 pages and there were over 226 boxes of hard copy documents, and vast majority of responsive documents were in the possession of the SEC and had either already been produced by the SEC to Brady, or would shortly be produced

Nature of Case: Securities litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email and electronic data

Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Ameridebt, Inc., 2006 WL 618563 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2006)

Key Insight: Magistrate denied third party’s motion to stay discovery order requiring him to give permission to Google, Inc. to produce emails from his gmail account, where third party failed to establish any likelihood of success on appeal or that the balance of hardships tipped in his favor; court was “skeptical” of third party’s unsubstantiated arguments that the volume of email was large and that attorney review would be unduly costly, and noted that “email could likely be screened efficiently through the use of electronic search terms that the parties agreed upon”

Nature of Case: Allegations of consumer fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Email in third party’s Google email account

MarketRx, Inc. v. Turner, 2006 WL 851930 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. Mar. 31, 2006) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Court denied motion to quash as overbroad plaintiff?s subpoena to current employer of defendant which sought, among other things: documents and information describing any type of work that defendant performed, including solicitations and proposals, all documents and communications (including emails) he sent or received, and every computer or electronic equipment and he touched, including all backups, as well as extensive information about current employer’s practices and policies regarding document retention and computer backup; court further granted motion to compel defendant to produce similar information; parties to observe confidentiality order

Nature of Case: Action by employer against former employee based upon non-competition agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Computer and electronic equipment “touched” by former employee; email

In re Natural Gas Commodity Litig., 2005 WL 3036505 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2005)

Key Insight: Court narrowed scope of subpoena and ordered plaintiff and third party to negotiate a reasonable “sample” protocol and search protocol to expedite production, limit the burden and perhaps develop information to return to court to refine the court’s ruling

Nature of Case: Securities class action

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheets

Galvin v. Gillette Co., 2005 WL 1155253 (Mass. Super. Apr. 28, 2005)

Key Insight: Where much of the material sought did not appear to touch on or be relevant to the matter under investigation by the Secretary, i.e., whether fraud may be present in the UBS or Goldman, Sachs fairness opinions based on information provided by Gillette, court quashed broad subpoena issued to Gillette without prejudice to the Secretary issuing a new subpoena more narrowly drafted

Nature of Case: Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts issued subpoena under state securities act in connection with pending merger

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Centurion Indus., Inc. v. Warren Steurer & Assocs., 665 F.2d 323 (10th Cir. 1981)

Key Insight: Subpoena seeking non-party’s software trade secrets enforced since trade secrets were relevant and necessary to patent suit and need for information outweighed possible injury to third party

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Software trade secrets of third party

City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 222 F.R.D. 51 (E.D.N.Y. 2004)

Key Insight: Court denied BATF’s motion to quash subpoenas since firearms tracing and licensing data maintained by BATF in federal databases was relevant and would be subject to a confidentiality order, and disclosure of the data was not precluded by appropriations statute or by law enforcement privilege

Nature of Case: City and families of shooting victims sued manufacturers, distributors and retailers of weapons

Electronic Data Involved: Database maintained by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.