Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03946/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03946-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-FILED 3/20/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOSEPH PADGETT AND DARLA

PADGETT,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF MONTE SERENO, ET AL.,

Defendants. /

NO. 04-cv-3946 JW (RS)

ORDER RE DEMAND TO

INSPECT COMPUTER SYSTEMS

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is the request of plaintiffs Joseph Padgett and Darla Padgett that the City of

Monte Sereno be required to permit the Padgett’s expert to inspect and make images of the hard

drives on the City’s desktop computers and servers. In its order dated February 24, 2006, the Court

directed the Padgetts to provide the City with information regarding their expert and the procedures

he proposed to use, and ordered the parties to meet-and-confer thereafter in an attempt to resolve the

issue without further Court intervention. The parties have been unable to reach an agreement,

necessitating this order.

While the Padgett’s expert possesses sufficient qualifications and proposes adequate

safeguards to ensure the security of the City’s computer systems and data, under all the

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 201 Filed 03/20/06 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Cooper advises that the process could be accomplished without removal of the hard drives,

but that doing so would be more time-consuming.

2

circumstances present here, the burden and expense to the City of complying with that process

outweighs the Padgett’s interest in conducting the search.

II. DISCUSSION

The Padgett’s retained forensic computer expert, Scott Cooper, is a founder and Managing

Director of INSYNC Consulting Group, Inc., based in Los Angeles. Cooper has submitted a

declaration and resume establishing his experience and expertise in conducting the type of forensic

examination of computer systems that the Padgetts are seeking. Cooper’s experience includes

substantial work in the context of litigation, both on behalf of parties and by appointment of the

court.

Cooper proposes a procedure under which he would shut down each of the City’s computers

in turn and remove the hard drives to “image” the data thereon.1

 Then, in INSYNC’s secure

facilities in Los Angeles, Cooper would perform the necessary procedures to recover all the data on

the hard drives, regardless of the state in which it exists (“live,” “deleted,” “slack,” “unallocated.” or

“wiped.”) Cooper would then run targeted searches on the data to find any relevant documents or

information. Before any documents or information would be disclosed to the Padgetts or their

counsel, the City would be given the opportunity to review what Cooper finds, to identify anything

that should be withheld as privileged or non-responsive.

Because the Padgetts are specifically looking for information pertaining to the prior creation

of, or viewing of, documents on the City’s computers, rather than for documents that are presently

stored on those computers in a form accessible by an ordinary user, a procedure along the general

lines proposed by Cooper appears necessary and might be warranted in some cases. Many of the

City’s objections would, if accepted, appear to preclude this kind of search in any case, regardless

of what was at stake, and the Court does not endorse those objections. Others of the City’s

objections are adequately addressed by Cooper’s proposals or are otherwise not compelling. Were

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 201 Filed 03/20/06 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

the Court inclined to order the inspection here, additional details could be spelled out to address any

remaining legitimate concerns the City might have. 

Nevertheless, there is merit to the City’s central objection that under the circumstances of

this case it should not be forced to incur the burden and expense and any residual risks to the

security of its systems and data that may exist notwithstanding Cooper’s safeguards. While the

Padgetts would bear the direct costs of Cooper’s work, there is no dispute that each of the City’s

desktop computers would need to be shut down for a period of one to two hours, and that the two

servers would each need to be shut down for up to eight hours or more. While Cooper is willing to

schedule the shutdowns to minimize disruption, including working after normal business hours, it is

apparent that the disruption would be more than de minimus. Additionally, the City reasonably

insists on having Cooper’s work monitored by the City’s own technical personnel, the cost of which

would not be insubstantial. The City’s counsel would likely also have a right to be present, at further

cost to the City.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 allows a court to limit discovery where “the burden or

expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the

case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the

litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues.” Fed.R.Civ.P.

26(b)(2). Weighing all of those factors here leads to the conclusion that the procedure proposed by

the Padgetts creates a burden on the City that cannot be justified by the likely benefit.

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 201 Filed 03/20/06 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

 III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel an inspection of the City of Monte Sereno’s computers is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

Dated: 3/20/06 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 201 Filed 03/20/06 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Marwa Elzankaly melzankaly@mfmlaw.com, smaes@mfmlaw.com

Joseph C. Howard , Jr jhoward@hrmrlaw.com, tmaster@hrmrlaw.com;

dlongstaff@hrmrlaw.com

James McManis jmcmanis@mfmlaw.com, clarsen@mfmlaw.com; smaes@mfmlaw.com

Christine Peek cpeek@mfmlaw.com, smaes@mfmlaw.com

Michael Reedy mreedy@mfmlaw.com, smaes@mfmlaw.com

Colleen Duffy Smith cduffysmith@mfmlaw.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Dated: 3/20/06 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 201 Filed 03/20/06 Page 5 of 5