Litigant Access to Opponent ESI Challenged
"Even if a judge's reasoning may give rise to criticism, an opinion can shed much light on how courts approach judgment calls over opening access to a litigation opponent's electronically stored information.
One such opinion was filed last month, in a case captioned Mintel International Group Ltd. v. Neergheen, No. 08-CV-3939 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2009). In that case, Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez rejected a plaintiff's efforts to secure a court order that would allow it to search the computers of a defendant's new employer.
Last summer, in a column discussing "departing employee" litigation, I wrote about an earlier opinion in Mintel International Group's litigation against Meesham Neergheen.
In Mintel International Group Ltd. v. Neergheen, No. 08-CV-3939 (N.D. Ill. July 11, 2008), or "Mintel I," Mintel International sought a temporary restraining order against its former employee, Neergheen, who left to work for a direct competitor."
One such opinion was filed last month, in a case captioned Mintel International Group Ltd. v. Neergheen, No. 08-CV-3939 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2009). In that case, Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez rejected a plaintiff's efforts to secure a court order that would allow it to search the computers of a defendant's new employer.
Last summer, in a column discussing "departing employee" litigation, I wrote about an earlier opinion in Mintel International Group's litigation against Meesham Neergheen.
In Mintel International Group Ltd. v. Neergheen, No. 08-CV-3939 (N.D. Ill. July 11, 2008), or "Mintel I," Mintel International sought a temporary restraining order against its former employee, Neergheen, who left to work for a direct competitor."
