Dunstan et al v. comScore, Inc.

Filing 288

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Young B. Kim: Plaintiff Dunstan's motion to exclude disputed data 268 is denied. In his motion Dunstan seeks to prevent the disclosure of certain non-email file listings and internet browsing history from outside the time frame between January 1, 2010, and September 30, 2010, on the basis that such information is not relevant to this case. Dunstan argues that the downloading of OSSProxy occurred on September 22, 2010, and that any benefit that can be derived from such information cannot outweigh his privacy concerns. Defendant argues in response that the information is critical to completing the forensic analysis it seeks. In support of this position, Defendant provides testimony from its retained expert confirming this assertion. Having considered the expert's testimony and his explanation, the court finds that the information is necessary for Defendant to conducting the analysis the court has permitted. As such, the motion is denied. Dunstan is ordered to provide the disputed data to Defendant's designated expert by December 10, 2013. Tomorrow's status hearing to stand. Mailed notice (ma,)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.1.1
Eastern Division
Jeff Dunstan, et al.
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 1:11−cv−05807
Honorable James F. Holderman

comScore, Inc.
Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, December 3, 2013:
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Young B. Kim: Plaintiff Dunstan's motion to
exclude disputed data [268] is denied. In his motion Dunstan seeks to prevent the
disclosure of certain non−email file listings and internet browsing history from outside the
time frame between January 1, 2010, and September 30, 2010, on the basis that such
information is not relevant to this case. Dunstan argues that the downloading of OSSProxy
occurred on September 22, 2010, and that any benefit that can be derived from such
information cannot outweigh his privacy concerns. Defendant argues in response that the
information is critical to completing the forensic analysis it seeks. In support of this
position, Defendant provides testimony from its retained expert confirming this assertion.
Having considered the expert's testimony and his explanation, the court finds that the
information is necessary for Defendant to conducting the analysis the court has permitted.
As such, the motion is denied. Dunstan is ordered to provide the disputed data to
Defendant's designated expert by December 10, 2013. Tomorrow's status hearing to stand.
Mailed notice (ma,)

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was
generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and
criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please
refer to it for additional information.
For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our
web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.