12C4204 Chadha vs. Chopra Page 1 of 2 

Order Form (01/2005) 

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge or 

Magistrate Judge John J. Tharp Jr. Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 4204 DATE 6/11/2013 

CASE 

TITLE

Chadha vs. Chopra 

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT 

For the reasons explained in the Statement section of this order, the plaintiffs’ motion to compel 

[49] is granted in part and denied in part. The plaintiffs’ expert may conduct a forensic 

examination of the defendant’s devices, but the plaintiffs are not entitled to an “all files” index 

of the files located on the devices. 

■[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

Plaintiffs Rajive and Puja Chadha (the “Chadhas”) move for an order compelling 

defendant Paramjit Chopra to allow the Chadhas’ retained expert to conduct a forensic 

examination of Chopra’s computers and electronic devices, and to allow the expert to make an 

index of all files located on the devices.1

 

Chopra does not oppose the Chadhas’ request to conduct a forensic examination of his 

devices generally, but he argues that an “independent third party examiner” should conduct the 

examination. He claims that he is concerned that if the Chadhas’ retained expert conducts the 

examination, the expert might use discovery obtained in this case for improper purposes, such as 

to reopen discovery in Chopra’s separate divorce case. The Chadhas argue that there are good 

reasons why their retained expert should conduct the examination. First, they note that deleted 

files (which the expert will examine) often become fragmented, rendering analysis difficult. An 

examiner who is familiar with the facts of this case will be more successful at identifying and 

gathering deleted and fragmented files. Next, the Chadhas argue that they have agreed to pay for 

the cost of the forensic examination, and that hiring a so-called “neutral” expert to conduct the 

examination will needlessly drive up their cost of conducting the examination. And finally, the 

Chadhas note that the parties’ agreed protocol will prohibit the expert from using files obtained 

from Chopra’s devices from any improper purpose, obviating Chopra’s concern that the 

documents could be used for improper purposes. 

Because requiring an “independent third party examiner” to conduct the examination 

would needlessly drive up the Chadhas’ discovery costs with no corresponding benefit, the 

 

1

 The Chadhas’ motion originally requested additional relief, but the parties appear to have 

resolved their other differences. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04204 Document #: 54 Filed: 06/11/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:625
12C4204 Chadha vs. Chopra Page 2 of 2 

Chadhas will be allowed to use their retained expert to conduct the forensic examination. Adding 

an additional “independent” expert to the discovery process would certainly increase costs, as 

the expert would presumably have to spend time and resources to get up to speed on the facts of 

this case prior to conducting the forensic examination, and the Chadhas’ retained expert would 

need to devote resources to reviewing the independent expert’s work. Further, because the 

Chadhas would be the party paying the new “independent” expert, it is unclear whether the new 

expert would be any more independent than the Chadhas’ retained expert, who is also being paid 

by the Chadhas. And finally, the agreed discovery protocols will adequately protect Chopra from 

the use of his computer files for any improper purpose. If documents from the Chadhas’ forensic 

investigation inappropriately make their way into Chopra’s divorce proceeding, he is certainly 

free to raise the issue with the Court and to request appropriate relief. 

However, the Chadhas have not shown that they are entitled to an index of every file 

contained on Chopra’s devices, so their request for the index will be denied. The Chadhas 

selected search terms to identify relevant documents, and their forensic expert will be allowed to 

conduct the forensic examination and make subjective decisions regarding the search term 

“hits.” That process should be adequate to identify discoverable documents. Further, because file 

names are often inscrutable and unhelpful, the proposed all files index is unlikely to provide any 

benefit to the Chadhas sufficient to outweigh the additional invasion of privacy that Chopra will 

suffer if the Chadhas or their attorneys have access to the name of every file on his computer, 

regardless of whether the files appear to relate to this litigation. To understand why allowing the 

Chadhas to access an all files index would be inappropriate, imagine that Chopra’s documents 

were stored in paper form. The Chadhas would clearly not be entitled to a brief description,

equivalent to a file name, of every paper document in Chopra’s possession, regardless of 

whether the document related in any way to this litigation. Likewise, the Chadhas are not 

entitled to know the file names of every document on Chopra’s devices. The Chadhas 

presumably chose broad search terms that would identify most relevant documents. They are not 

entitled to an additional “safety net” consisting of an all files index that describes documents that 

are, from all indications, unrelated to this litigation. 

Therefore, the Chadhas’ motion is granted in part, and the Chadhas will be allowed to 

use their own retained expert to conduct the forensic examination. But the motion is also denied 

in part, and the Chadhas are not entitled to an all files index. The parties are directed to revise 

their discovery protocol in light of this opinion. 

 Courtroom Deputy

Initials: AIR 

Case: 1:12-cv-04204 Document #: 54 Filed: 06/11/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:626