eDiscovery Daily Blog
eDiscovery Case Law: Downloading Confidential Information Leads to Motion to Compel Production
The North Dakota District Court has recently decided in favor of a motion to compel production of electronic evidence, requiring imaging of computer hard drives, in a case involving the possible electronic theft of trade secrets.
In Weatherford U.S., L.P. v. Chase Innis and Noble Casings Inc., No. 4:09-cv-061, 2011 WL 2174045 (D.N.D. June 2, 2011), the court ruled to allow the plaintiff to select and hire a forensic expert at its own expense to conduct imaging of the defendants’ hard drives. The purpose of this investigation was to discern whether or not confidential data that was downloaded from the plaintiff’s computers was, in fact, used in the building of the defendants’ own oil services firm.
Although the judge noted that courts are generally “cautious” in authorizing such hard drive imaging, this motion was substantiated by the defendant, Innis’s, “acknowledgment that he downloaded [plaintiff’s] files to a thumb drive without permission.” The court believed that circumstances of the case warranted further investigation into the defendant’s computer history:
- The plaintiff, Weatherford US LP, had previously alleged that Chance Innis, a former employee, had downloaded confidential and proprietary information and used it to his advantage in starting his own competing company, Noble Casing Inc.
- Innis had admitted to returning to Weatherford US offices late in the evening of the day he was terminated and downloading files onto a thumb drive without permission. Two weeks later, he launched his own competing oil services company, the co-defendant in this case, Noble Casing Inc. However, Innis maintains that he did not later access the files stored on his thumb drive and never used them in the process of starting his own company.
- Contrary to these assertions, forensic examination of the thumb drive showed that the files were later accessed; whether or not they were instrumental in the startup of Noble Casing Inc. remains in question.
- The plaintiff requested access to the defendant’s computers in the pursuit of previously subpoenaed documents, proposing that they select, hire, and pay for the services of a forensic investigator to image the defendants’ hard drives.
- The defendants objected, proposing instead that an expert be chosen in agreement by all parties.
- The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff’s motion in this instance, agreeing that all materials imaged will be shown to the defendant to screen for privilege before being shared with the plaintiff.
- The court maintained that it is not unusual for imaging of hard drives to be allowed by the court in cases such as this, “particularly in cases where trade secrets and electronic evidence are both involved.”
So, what do you think? Do you agree that Weatherford should have been allowed to examine images of the defendants’ hard drives, or should Innis’ privacy and that of his company have been protected? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.
CloudNine empowers legal, information technology, and business professionals with eDiscovery automation software and professional services that simplify litigation, investigations, and audits for law firms and corporations.