The Court ordered highly confidential information, consisting of computer source code, to be produced to an independent expert appointed by the Court.
Discovery
Sea Ranch II, Inc. v. Sea Ranch II Owners Association, Inc., November 15, 2006 (Tennille)(unpublished)
The Court denied plaintiff’s Motion to Compel because it failure to file a brief in support of its Motion, as required by Rule 15.11 of the Business Court Rules.
JDH Capital LLC v. Flowers, 2007 NCBC 31 (N.C. Super. Oct. 12, 2007)(Tennille)
This case addresses a minor, but significant point involving discovery. Rule 33(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[i]nterrogatory parts and subparts shall be counted as separate interrogatories" for purposes of counting the number of interrogatories. The Court ruled that a subpart is counted separately only if it is requesting information…
Lawrence v. UMLIC-Five Corp., 2007 NCBC 30 (N.C. Super. Ct. Sept. 14, 2007)(Diaz)
Plaintiff, who held a default judgment against a North Carolina corporation, sued its directors to collect from them personally. The claims included breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent conveyance, failure to give notice of dissolution, and piercing the corporate veil.
The directors served discovery aimed at the validity of the amount of the judgment, which potentially…
Wachovia Capital Partners, LLC v. Frank Harvey Investment Family Limited Partnership, 2007 NCBC 7 (N.C. Super. Ct. Mar. 5, 2007)(Tennille)
Defendant, via a counterclaim, sought damages as a result of a concluded merger involving a Delaware LLC. The Court held that the decision whether to merge belonged to the Management Committee of the LLC, and that it would review that decision pursuant to the Business Judgment Rule.
Defendant contended that company insiders "stood on both…
Kornegay v. Aspen Asset Group, LLC, 2007 NCBC 5 (N.C. Super. Ct. Feb. 28, 2007)(Diaz)
Plaintiff designated its expert witness in an untimely way, without any good reason. Plaintiff furthermore had not seasonably supplemented an earlier discovery response seeking the identification of expert witnesses. The Court emphasized the duty of parties to comply with the Court’s scheduling orders, and stated "[p]ut bluntly, when it comes to matters of case management and…
AARP v. American Family Prepaid Legal Corp., 2007 NCBC 4 (N.C. Super. Ct. Feb. 23, 2007)(Diaz)
The Court granted a Motion to Quash a subpoena to a non-party. The subpoena was served on the non-party at its corporate offices in Texas, and demanded production of the requested documents in North Carolina. The non-party had no presence in North Carolina, but was licensed by the North Carolina Department of Insurance to do…
Puckett v. KPMG, LLP, 2007 NCBC 2 (N.C. Super. Ct. Feb. 13, 2007)(Diaz)
The Court denied Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order seeking to delay the taking of the depositions of its representatives. It held that the defendants had unreasonably taken the position that they could not be available for depositions for nearly four months. It also rejected their argument that their primary counsel could not be available…
Bank of America Corporation v. SR International Business Insurance Company, Ltd., 2006 NCBC 15 (N.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 1, 2006)(Tennille)
This case presents the logical corollary to Analog: how should the issue of retrieval of electronically stored information, and the inevitable cost, be allocated when a non-party holds the information?
The target of the subpoena had produced approximately 50,000 documents in response to a subpoena, but balked at retrieving and producing deleted emails contained on…
Analog Devices, Inc. v. Michalski, 2006 NCBC 14 (N.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 1, 2006)(Tennille)
The issue here concerned the now familiar problem of the duty of a party to retrieve electronic data from back-up media, and how the cost of that effort should be allocated. The Court engaged in a thorough review of the various approaches to the issue, ranging from the now-famous Zubulake opinion to the Sedona Principles…