Third Party Discovery – Page 9 – Electronic Discovery Law

Glazer v. Fireman?s Fund Ins. Co., No. 11 Civ. 4374(PGG)(FM), 2012 WL 1197167 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where third-party provider of online psychic services represented that plaintiff would be able to access most of the information requested by defendant if she re-opened her account, the court ordered that plaintiff do so, and promptly produce all responsive information; as to information not available to plaintiff, court indicated that defendant may be provided opportunity to require plaintiff to provide authorization to third party to release such information

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Records related to sessions with online psychic

Special Markets Ins. Consultants, Inc. v. Lynch, No. 11 C 9181, 2012 WL 1565348 (N.D. Ill. May 2, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court granted motion to quash third party subpoenas seeking production of defendants? email records, emails, text messages, and other related information (from Yahoo and Verizon) where the court found defendants did have standing to challenge the subpoenas and where the court further found that the subpoenas violated the Stored Communications Act, which does not allow for the production of such information pursuant to civil subpoena

Nature of Case: Breach of employment contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email records and messages; phone records and text messages

Millennium TGA, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Commc?ns LLC, —F. Supp. 2d—, 2012 WL 2371426 (D.D.C. June 25, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff served a subpoena seeking identifying information related to one defendant and 350 ?co-conspirators? who plaintiff alleged engaged in a conspiracy to unlawfully download Plaintiff?s movie (using the BitTorrent protocol) and Comcast objected on the grounds of undue burden, among other things, the D.C. Court (the court from which the subpoena was issued) treated Comcast?s objections as a motion to quash and found that the burden of issuing the subpoena would result in undue burden to Comcast, to the defendant and to the 350 ?co-conspirators? who did not reside in the forum because they would be subjected to undue inconvenience of litigating any objections in a ?distant forum? and denied Plaintiff?s request but, recognizing Plaintiff?s efforts and interest in litigating the case, ordered Comcast to provide information related to alleged co-conspirators city and state of residence, but not identifying information, which Comcast could do without undue burden and which would allow plaintiff to seek the identifying information of the alleged co-conspirators in the jurisdiction in which they lived

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information related to ISP subscribers

Bruno v. Bozzuto?s, Inc., 850 F. Supp. 2d 462 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs destroyed paper copies of records that were also maintained in electronic format (by a third party) despite anticipation of litigation, court ordered discovery reopened for the purpose of allowing plaintiff to take the necessary action to acquire the electronic records and to provide them to defendant at their own cost and indicated that if the records were no longer in the third party?s possession, the court would ?reconsider its ruling? where the absence of those records would result in a greater degree of prejudice to the defendant

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copies of hard copy records that had been destroyed

Musket Corp. v. Star Fuel of Okla., No. CIV-11-444-M, 2012 WL 3986344 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 11, 2012); No. CIV-11-444-M, 2012 WL 4363752 (Sept. 21, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where independent forensic examiner was tasked with determining whether plaintiff?s data was present on defendant?s laptop and with maintaining an image of defendant?s laptop sealed from inspection, but where plaintiff reserved the right seek discovery and thereafter subpoened the non-party investigator to produce the mirror image of defendant?s laptop, magistrate judge found that rule 45 subpoena was an appropriate discovery method and denied defendant?s motion to quash; on emergency appeal, the District Court noted that allowing direct inspection of a party?s hard drive was not routine, that because of the presence of potentially privileged material, even plaintiff?s expert should not have access to the entire hard drive without allowing defendant?s to object to the production of certain information and that in light of the short time before trial it was ?simply too late?; court noted that this ?predicament? was one plaintiff ?created itself? by waiting to seek access to the hard drive despite knowing for months of the potential that its data was present there

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

FTC v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., —F. Supp. 2d—, 2012 WL 4888473 (D.D.C. Oct. 16, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where FTC sought to compel defendant to search for and produce responsive ESI on backup tapes, the court resolved the question of what standard must be applied to properly analyze the producing party?s claims of burden (Rule 26(b)(2)(B) ?good cause? to overcome the burden shown by the responding party v. the standard established in FTC v. Texaco Inc., 555 F.2d 862 (DC Cir 1977) ?a showing that compliance with the subpoena ?threatens to unduly disrupt or serious hinder normal operations of a business??) and determined that in light of the narrowed request, the defendant had not established a sufficient burden and thus ordered defendant to conduct a search of the at-issue backup tapes and to produce any non-privileged materials

Nature of Case: Administrative Subpoena

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

Pearson Educ., Inc. v. Doe, No. 12 Civ. 4786(BSJ)(KNF), 2012 WL 4832816 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied motion for expedited discovery to Paypal Inc purportedly intended to determine the identity of an alleged copyright infringer where plaintiff failed to sustain their burden of making a clear and specific showing of good cause and sufficient reason why there motion was necessary, including because plaintiff failed to assert that Doe defendant lived in the relevant judicial district, because plaintiff failed to establish that they exhausted traditional avenues of identification and because the subpoena was overly broad, among other reasons

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information from internet service provider (ISP)

AL Noaimi v. Zaid, No. 11-11560EFM, 2012 WL 4758048 (D. Kan. Oct. 5, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motion to quash defendants? subpoena to one of plaintiffs? email providers where plaintiffs? assertions of breadth and burden were merely conclusory and were unsupported by evidence, where defendants agreed to allow plaintiffs? counsel to review the emails before production to defendants, and where the court?s power to compel the plaintiff to consent to the isp?s production circumvented any problems with the Electronic Communications Privacy Act

Nature of Case: breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Emails from internet service provider (ISP)

Hageman v. Accenture, No. 10-1759 (RHK/TNL), 2012 WL 8993423 (D. Minn. Oct. 19, 2011)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Analyzing a question of control, court ruled that where defendant?s employees could access emails/information stored in a third party?s server ?within his or her normal day-to-day work? then that information was within defendant?s control but that information which was not accessible to the employees was no longer in defendant?s control, and thus properly requested using a Rule 45 subpoena

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI/emails stored on third party server

Fraserside IP LLC v. Gamma Entm?t., —F. Supp. 2d—, 2012 WL 4504818 (N.D. Iowa Sept. 28, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: In dispute over jurisdictional discovery, court concluded that plaintiff was entitled to a ?small slice? of defendant?s Google Analytics data (which tracks and accumulates data related to websites? visitors) related to the number of visitors to defendant?s website(s) from Iowa-based IP addresses; court agreed with plaintiff that it was entitled to ?more? than a hard copy PDF ?screen grab? of the relevant information and indicated that it anticipated production as HTML pages that could be opened with a standard internet browser, but that if that was not an agreeable solution, another hearing would be held

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Google Analytics

Tag:Third Party Discovery