Campbell Alliance Group, Inc. v. Dandekar, et al

Filing 57

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 50 Renewed Motion for Expanded Expedited Discovery - Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 01/13/2014. (Baker, C.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
NO. 5:13-CV-00415-FL

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAMPBELL ALLIANCE GROUP,
INC.

Plaintiff,

v.
ASHWIN DANDEKAR, EMILY HUA,
and JONATHAN BETTS,

Defendants.

ORDER

)
)
)
)
)

This matter comes before the court on plaintiffs renewed motion to expand expedited
discovery (DE 50). The matter has been fully briefed, and the issues raised are ripe for decision.
For the reasons that follow, the court grants in part and denies in part plaintiffs motion to expand
expedited discovery.

BACKGROUND
The court focuses here on the status of the case as it relates specifically to the instant motion,
where reference can be made to prior orders, including most recently the court's order on plaintiffs
motion for temporary restraining order, for a more detailed background summary.
On December 6, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion seeking to expand expedited discovery (DE
37). Plaintiff sought to expand the previously ordered expedited discovery to include, among other
things, a forensic examination of any computer(s) and/or electronic device(s) on which plaintiffs

confidential and proprietary information may be located.
By order entered December 23,2013, the court denied as moot plaintiffs earlier motion to
expand expedited discovery where the original defendants asserted that Blue Matter already had
offered to make the relevant computer(s) available for forensic examination under a protocol to be
mutually agreed upon by the parties. The court directed the parties to meet and confer to determine
a forensic examination protocol for the relevant computer(s) on or before December 30, 2013. If
resolution was not reached, plaintiff could renew its motion seeking to expand expedited discovery,
to include specific reference(s) on the face of any discovery motion, as to what, precisely, it seeks
to discover, in filing on or before January 3, 2014. Accordingly, plaintiff filed the instant renewed
motion to expand expedited discovery.
By text order entered January 6, 2013, the court informed the parties that it was ordering a
forensic examination of the subject computer(s) and/or electronic device(s), despite the protests of
the original defendants, Ashwin Dandekar and Emily Hua. The court allowed defendants until 12
noon on Wednesday, January 8, 2013, to address further plaintiff in an effort to reach agreement
among all parties as to protocols. The court directed any response to the instant motion to be filed
by Friday, January 10, 2014, if no agreement could be reached. While newly added defendant
Jonathan Betts, through counsel, voiced agreement to plaintiffs proposed protocol, the original
defendants did not. Accordingly, where the original defendants timely filed expedited response in
opposition to the instant motion, the issues raised are ripe for decision.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks to obtain additional, expedited discovery to conduct a forensic examination
of (1) the Seagate electronic storage device, Serial No. NA5K.J7SM, onto which Betts allegedly

2

copied Campbell information; (2) the Blue Matter computer to which the Seagate device was
attached; and (3) any other electronic device in defendants' custody, possession, or control which
may contain Campbell information. Plaintiff also seeks to depose Betts on or before January 31,
2014. Plaintiffs proposed forensic examination protocol, attached as Exhibit D to its supporting
memorandum, is made a part of this order in addendum hereto.
"The gist of the parties' instant dispute is the scope of the forensic examination protocol."
(Pl.'s Mem. in Supp. 6). Plaintiff seeks to forensically examine the Seagate device, Betts's Blue
Matter computer, and any other electronic device in defendant's custody, possession, or control
which may contain Campbell information. Defendants contend a search of any Blue Matter
computer and/or device, without an identification of the information plaintiff seeks, would amount
to an unlimited fishing expedition for a competitor's information. (Defs.' Resp. 7). Accordingly,
defendants seek to limit the forensic examination to a search of Betts' Blue Matter laptop for the
specific information contained on his Seagate device. (ld.).
After review of the record and for good cause shown, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(b)(1), the court hereby orders the parties to conduct forensic examination of the
Seagate electronic storage device and Betts's Blue Matter computer. The Seagate electronic storage
device shall be examined first, in accordance with the protocol attached hereto, which protocol is
adopted by the court as its own in the case. Thereafter, Betts's Blue Matter computer shall be
examined pursuant to the specified protocol, but with examination limited to a search for the
responsive information identified on the Seagate electronic storage device. The search of the Blue
Matter computer shall be for the responsive information generally, not merely the specific files
identified on the Seagate device. Plaintiffs motion is denied in that limited part where it requests
3

a forensic examination of any other electronic device in defendants' custody, possession, or control
which may contain Campbell information. In addition, Betts shall appear for deposition on or before
January 31,2014.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons given, plaintiffs renewed motion for expanded expedited discovery is
granted in part and denied in part as set forth above.

so ORDERED, this the/SJ-day of January, 2014.

E W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge

4

Protocol

5