ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> The Trade Secrets Vault

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Intellectual Property Law

: The Trade Secrets Vault

Is Your Data Wide Open to Your Opponent?

ADVERTISEMENTS
Nolan M. Goldberg Information technology departments of sophisticated organizations are already aware that each party to a litigation in the United States is obligated to collect its own discoverable electronic information to be produced to the opposing party. A recent change to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a) makes clear that this honor system is not without limitation, and in certain situations, pursuant to a court order, a requesting party may be permitted to collect an opponent's electronic data, and associated metadata, itself. Such inspections, as they are known, can range from creating an image of a single computer to a full forensic examination of a network. The assistance of an organization's IT personnel in navigating these situations is critical, first in providing the technical guidance necessary to oppose the request, and then in assisting in conducting the inspection if the request is granted. ... Another way to oppose a request to inspect is to show the willingness and capability to run the requested searches, typically using outside experts in conjunction with internal IT personnel. While courts have disagreed on this issue, at least one court has denied a request to inspect on this basis, noting that the responding party had agreed to have its own expert perform the search, and the court had "no basis to question this representation." Calyon v. Mizuho Sec. USA Inc., No. 07CIV02241RODF, 2007 WL 1468889, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2007). However, see Cenveo, 2007 WL 442387, at *2 (allowing inspection of hard drives of ex-employees who were alleged to have misappropriated trade secrets despite the defendant's willingness to conduct its own inspection and production because of "the close relationship between plaintiff's claims and defendants' computer equipment").

Full post as published by The Trade Secrets Vault on March 12, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0132 secs (new cache)