![]() The court agreed with defendants and denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel, finding the forensic examination would allow plaintiffs to become privy to information beyond the scope of audio software and they could engage in the discovery process in a less invasive but still worthwhile manner. Defendants claimed forensic examination would be vastly disproportionate to the issue. Plaintiffs claimed the discovery was relevant to their RICO claim, alleging continued criminal copyright infringement of unlicensed software as a predicate act. Key Insight: Plaintiffs moved to compel the forensic examination of defendants’ devices and data storage for imaging and inspection, along with their licenses for all software used for their businesses. Nature of Case: Data Privacy Class ActionĮlectronic Data Involved: Financial documents The court noted: “Googles proffered ‘justification,’ primarily that the documents reflect highly confidential financial information not relevant to the claims in suit, was heard and rejected by this Court twice.” The court ordered Google to pay plaintiff’s fees and costs for having to bring the motion to compel. Google maintains it was justified in working with E&Y to cull irrelevant documents from the final production. E&Y then identified 6,322 responsive documents and Google reviewed and deselected 6,232 documents on the basis of relevance, resulting in E&Y’s production of 90 documents. Google moved for a protective order and the court granted in part and denied in part the motion, narrowly tailoring the allowed requests. Plaintiff subpoenaed E&Y for documents relating to the valuation of certain user information. ![]() ![]() Key Insight: This matter relates to the court’s order to compel and order to show cause as to why Google should not be sanctioned for interfering with the production of third-party Ernst & Young (E&Y) documents ordered by the court.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |