|
|
 |
           |
|
|
 In re Ford Motor Company, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 19531 (Sept. 22, 2003). Overview Appellate court vacates discovery order, ruling that plaintiff is not entitled to direct access to defendant's computer databases without factual finding of non-compliance in discovery by defendant. Factual Background A consumer filed an action against Ford, alleging that the seatbelt buckle of her vehicle was defectively designed because the buckle unlatched during an accident. Legal Discussion This case came before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals on appeal from the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama. After filing several document requests, plaintiff filed a motion to compel, seeking direct access to Ford's databases (containing information about contacts with consumers, dealers, personnel and others) to conduct searches for related claims regarding the seatbelt buckle. The trial court, without a hearing and before Ford had responded, granted plaintiff's motion. Ford filed a motion for reconsideration, and both parties submitted briefs and evidence. The trial court refused reconsideration of the discovery order. Ford then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the trial judge to vacate the discovery order. The appellate court found that the trial court made no findings that Ford failed to comply properly with plaintiff's discovery requests. The trial court did not discuss its view of Ford's objections, and provided no substantive explanation for its ruling. In its order, the trial court granted plaintiff unlimited, direct access to the databases. The appellate court found that plaintiff was not entitled to such discovery without a factual finding of some non-compliance by the defendant. The appellate court determined the trial court abused its discretion by granting such a sweeping order. In vacating the trial court's order, the Eleventh Circuit examined the extent to which Rule 34 allows one party access to another party's information stored in a database. Under Rule 34(a), parties may request the other party to "produce and permit the party making the request . . . 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)." Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). But Rule 34(a) does not grant unrestricted, direct access to a respondent's database compilations. Instead, Rule 34(a) allows a requesting party to inspect and to copy the product-whether it be a document, disk, or other device-resulting from the respondent's translation of the data into a reasonably usable form.In re Ford Motor Company, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 19531 at *3-4. The court stated that direct access to a party's databases may be appropriate in some cases, but stated that the current case had not been shown to be appropriate for such an order. The court also indicated that a trial court allowing such discovery should set some parameters on the opposing party's access, including designation of search terms and protocols or other restraints.
|
| Home | About Us | E-Discovery Services | Law Library | Client Resources | News & Events | Discover A Better Way | Contact Us |
|
Copyright © 2005 Applied Discovery Inc. All rights reserved. Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy
|
| | |
 | Litigation | |
 | ||
| Antitrust - Second Requests | |
| ||
| Corporate Records Management and Proactive Record Review | |
| ||
| The Applied Discovery Difference | |
| ||
| Client Success Stories | |
 |
||
|
| |
|
Case Summaries | |
| ||
|
White Papers | |
| ||
|
Electronic Discovery Treatise | |
| ||
|
Court Rules | |
| ||
|
Articles | |
| ||
|
Model Orders & Sample Documents | |
| ||
|
Newsletter | |
| ||
|
Subscriptions | |
|
||