KEY Cases
Recent Cases

Keller v. National Farmers Union Property & Cas. Co.

  • Citation: 2013 WL 27731 (D. Mont., Jan. 2, 2013)
  • Published: February 11, 2016

Defendant insurer brought a motion to compel discovery of the plaintiffs’ social network site content. The court found that the defendant failed to show that the plaintiffs’ public postings undermined their claims, and thus was not entitled to discovery of nonpublic sections of the plaintiffs’ social networking accounts.

Potts v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

  • Citation: 2013 WL 1176504 (M.D. Tenn., Mar. 20, 2013)
  • Published: February 11, 2016

In a case brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the court agreed with other courts’ holdings that discovery of Facebook is allowed only where “the defendant makes a threshold showing that publicly available information on [Facebook] undermines the Plaintiff’s claims.”

Giacchetto v. Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District

  • Citation: 293 F.R.D. 112 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2013)
  • Published: February 11, 2016

Defendant sought records from plaintiff’s social media accounts in a case brought under the ADA. The plaintiff was ordered to produce certain limited postings regarding emotional distress and other stressors.

Caputi v. Topper Realty Corp.

  • Citation: 2015 WL 893663 (E.D.N.Y., Feb.25, 2015)
  • Published: February 11, 2016

In a Fair Labor Standards Act case, the court held that defendants were only entitled to a sampling of plaintiff’s Facebook activity with specific references to her emotional distress and treatment she received in connection therewith.

Fitbug Ltd. V. Fitbit, Inc.

  • Citation: 2015 WL 2251257 (N.D. Cal., May 13, 2015)
  • Published: February 8, 2016

In a dispute between two portable electronic fitness device manufacturers, the plaintiff objected to defendant’s taxed costs after summary judgment was granted in favor of defendant. The court reviewed the costs to be taxed, including data extraction and processing costs, and found them in fact to be higher than the amount imposed at summary judgment.

Lutzeier v. Citigroup Inc.

  • Citation: 2015 WL 430196 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 2, 2015)
  • Published: February 8, 2016

In an employment termination dispute, the court ruled on plaintiff’s two motions to compel resulting from disagreements over search terms and perceived lack of organization among the produced documents. The court denied the first request for additional search criteria except for one term, and found that the defendant had complied with the requirements in its production of documents.

ACI Worldwide Corp. v. MasterCard Technologies, LLC and MasterCard International, Inc.

  • Citation: 2015 WL 4249760 (D. Nebraska, July 13, 2015)
  • Published: February 8, 2016

Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel after defendants revised discovery requests several times and devised a search protocol for defendants to use in obtaining the ESI requested by the plaintiffs. The court ordered the parties to meet and confer, stating that it did not have the expertise necessary to determine the best methodology for obtaining the ESI.

Rembert v. Cheverko, et al.

  • Citation: 2015 WL 5918185 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 9, 2015)
  • Published: February 8, 2016

After deeming the deposition of the defendant’s 30(b)(6) witness “a waste of time,” the court granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendants to provide a properly prepared 30(b)(6) witness to testify regarding defendant’s preservation and production of emails and ordered defendant to reimburse plaintiffs for costs associated with the second deposition.

Silva v. Dick’s Sporting Goods

  • Citation: 2015 WL 1275840 (D. Conn., Mar. 19, 2015)
  • Published: February 8, 2016

The court refused to grant the defendant’s motion to compel production of non-redacted copies of 2,254 of plaintiff’s Facebook messages. The court determined that the request was overbroad.

Clear-View Technologies v. Rasnick

  • Citation: 2015 WL 2251005 (N.D. Cal., May 13, 2015)
  • Published: February 4, 2016

Court held that defendants had a duty to preserve evidence that was triggered two years prior to the filing of the lawsuit when the plaintiff sent text messages threatening to sue.