Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01937/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01937-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RICHARD LYTEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

JANET SIMPSON, 

Defendant.

___________________________________

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-1937 JF (PVT)

ORDER RE MOTION FOR A

PROTECTIVE ORDER OF

DEFENDANT’S HARD DRIVE.

On March 21, 2006, the parties appeared for hearing before Magistrate Judge Patricia V.

Trumbull regarding Defendant/Cross-Claimant Simpson’s (“Simpson”) request for a protective order

precluding Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Lytel’s (“Lytel”) expert from inspecting her personal computer

hard drive.1 Based on the briefs and arguments presented,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Simpson’s motion for a protective order of

Simpson’s hard drive is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. Simpson’s request for a

protective order as to the entire hard drive is DENIED. Lytel is entitled to inspect e-mail

communications between Simpson and other Sun Microsystems employees that might be found on

Case 5:05-cv-01937-JF Document 181 Filed 03/22/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

2 Simpson’s assertion that e-mails betweenSimpson and other Sun employees have never

been previously requested during discovery misses the point. The document request at issue in this

motion states “The hard drive in the computer or computers used by Janet Simpson at her home office

between January 1, 2003 and the present. Said hard drive or drives will be examined and/or copied

by a certified expert to permit extraction of all e-mail communications sent or received by Janet

Simpson to or from employees of Sun Microsystems during the above time period.” This is the

request to inspect such emails.

ORDER, page 2

Simpson’s hard drive .2 Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part:

“Any party may serve on any other party a request (1) to produce and permit the

party making the request, or someone acting on the requestor's behalf, to inspect

and copy, any designated documents (including writings, drawings, graphs, charts,

photographs, phonorecords, and other data compilations from which information can

be obtained, translated, if necessary, by the respondent through detection devices into

reasonably usable form) * * * .” (emphasis added.)

 Thus, Rule 34 expressly authorizes inspection of original documents. A propounding party may

agree to accept copies in lieu of inspecting the originals, but is not required to accept copies absent a

protective order. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Simpson’s request for protection of confidential

information on her hard drive is GRANTED. Simpson hired an expert to make a copy of her hard

drive. Lytel’s expert and Simpson’s expert shall meet and confer, no later than 30 days after this

order, to discuss the procedures for recovering e-mails from the copy of Simpson’s hard drive. Lytel,

through his and Simpson’s expert, may only search for communications between Simpson and other

Sun employees. Any retrieved e-mails between Simpson and other Sun employees shall first be

reviewed by Simpson’s attorney, and then by Sun’s attorney. Either Simpson or Sun may designate

e-mails “confidential” if appropriate under the Protective Order on file herein. If Simpson withholds

any e-mails on grounds of privilege or work product, she shall promptly serve a privilege log.

The committee notes to the 1970 amendments to Rule 34 state:

“The inclusive description of ‘documents’ is revised to accord with changing

technology. It makes clear that Rule 34 applies to electronics data compilations from

which information can be obtained only with the use of detection devices, and that

when the data can as a practical matter be made usable by the discovering party only

through respondent's devices, respondent may be required to use his devices to

translate the data into usable form. In many instances, this means that respondent will

have to supply a print-out of computer data. The burden thus placed on respondent

will vary from case to case, and the courts have ample power under Rule 26(c) to

protect respondent against undue burden or expense, either by restricting discovery or

requiring that the discovering party pay costs. Similarly, if the discovering party

needs to check the electronic source itself, the court may protect respondent with

respect to preservation of his records, confidentiality of nondiscoverable matters,

Case 5:05-cv-01937-JF Document 181 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER, page 3

and costs.” (emphasis added.) 

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 34(a) (Advisory Committee Notes, 1970 Amendment). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than April 3, 2006, Simpson’s expert shall serve

and file a declaration describing the procedure that he or she used to preserve a copy of Simpson’s

hard drive. 

Dated: 3/22/06

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01937-JF Document 181 Filed 03/22/06 Page 3 of 3