Legacy Data Access, LLC v. MediQuant, Inc.

Filing 82

ORDER that Pltf's Motion to Reopen Case and for Further Forensic Examination, which this Court construes as a motion to compel compliance with this Court's 3/14/2017, Order, is GRANTED. (*See Order for further details and instructions.) Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 5/17/17. [Referenced Motion filed in related case 3:17-mc-69-FDW-DSC, Doc. 12.] (This Order docketed in this case as directed and in related case, Doc.18) (ejb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:17-mc-00069-FDW-DSC
LEGACY DATA ACCESS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MEDIQUANT, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case and for Further
Forensic Examination (Doc. No. 12). Plaintiff originally filed this motion in the Northern District
of Georgia, and that Court transferred the motion to the Western District of North Carolina
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). (Doc. No. 16). This Court has reviewed all the filings and, for
the reasons that follow, GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of a case filed in the Western District of North Carolina between
Plaintiff and Defendant. See Legacy Data Access, LLC v. Mediquant, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv584-FDW-DSC (“North Carolina Case”). In the North Carolina Case, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant hired non-party William J. Rowland (“Rowland”), a former employee of Plaintiff, in
violation of Rowland’s non-competition agreement and that Defendant misappropriated Plaintiff’s
trade secrets through Rowland.
On January 6, 2017, Plaintiff served a subpoena upon Rowland, a Georgia resident,
requesting production and inspection of his personal computer. Rowland objected to the subpoena,
and Plaintiff filed an emergency motion to compel compliance with the subpoena in the Northern

District of Georgia. After several days of court-directed negotiations, the parties agreed to a
protocol in which the Georgia court permitted Plaintiff to search Rowland’s devices using a short
list of ten search terms. (Doc. Nos. 10, 11). Pursuant to that protocol, a neutral forensic examiner
imaged Rowland’s computer and conducted an examination. The neutral examiner’s report
indicates that of the ten search terms queried, there were relevant and non-privileged hits regarding
three terms. Thereafter, Plaintiff requested that this Court continue the trial in the North Carolina
Case to allow further investigation into Rowland’s computer.
Following a status hearing in March regarding the North Carolina Case during which this
Court heard argument from Plaintiff and Defendant, this Court entered an order on March 14,
2017, continuing the trial to July 10, 2017, and allowing additional examination of Rowland’s
computer. (Legacy Data Access, LLC v. Mediquant, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-584-FDW-DSC, Doc.
No. 79). Rowland, however, did not consent to releasing a copy of the neutral examiner’s forensic
image of his computer.
As a result, Plaintiff filed the instant motion in the Northern District of Georgia (Doc. No.
12) requesting that the Georgia court modify its previous order limiting the scope of evaluation of
Rowland’s computer to permit further examination in compliance with this Court’s March 14,
2017, Order in the North Carolina Case. Rowland filed a response in opposition to the motion,
arguing that further discovery is not warranted and that this Court did not consider his privacy
concerns when it issued the March 14, 2017, Order. (Doc. No. 13). Plaintiff filed a reply. (Doc.
No. 14).
On May 16, 2017, the Northern District of Georgia transferred the motion to the Western
District of North Carolina pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f), which authorizes a court to transfer a
subpoena-related motion to the issuing court in “exceptional circumstances.” (Doc. No. 16).

Accordingly, this Court now has jurisdiction to decide it. See e.g., United States ex rel. Ortiz v.
Mount Sinai Hosp., 169 F. Supp. 3d 538, 544 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
DISCUSSION
This Court views Plaintiff’s instant motion as a motion to compel enforcement of this
Court’s March 14, 2017, Order in the North Carolina Case. To some extent, Rowland’s response
brief essentially seeks reconsideration of this Court’s Order. In issuing the Order in the North
Carolina Case, however, this Court considered and rejected most of Rowland’s arguments that a
more in-depth examination would not yield relevant evidence. Moreover, even though Rowland
was not present at the March status conference in the North Carolina Case, the Court fully
considered and balanced his privacy interests, resulting in an order that not only discusses the
scope of permissible discovery and how to handle privileged information, but further requires the
parties to treat the image of Rowland’s computer as “Attorney’s Eyes Only.” (Legacy Data
Access, LLC v. Mediquant, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-584-FDW-DSC, Doc. No. 79).
To the extent that Rowland’s instant arguments seek to have this Court amend or reconsider
its March 14, 2017, Order, the Court declines to do so. Instead, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion
to the extent it seeks to enforce this Court’s March 14, 2017, Order, and the Court compels
Rowland to release a copy of the neutral examiner’s forensic image of his computer to Plaintiff
and Defendant by 5 p.m. on Friday, May 19, 2017.1 Any additional forensic evaluation shall be
conducted pursuant to and in compliance with this Court’s March 14, 2017, Order in the North
Carolina Case. Rowland is further cautioned that failure to comply with this Order could result in

1

The Court finds that modification of the Georgia court’s previous order and protocol for searching Rowland’s
computer is unnecessary. As a result of that order, a neutral examiner discovered relevant and non-privileged hits
regarding three search terms, which led this Court to allow further examination of the computer. Accordingly,
modification is not the proper remedy.

this Court holding him in contempt. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g) (“The court for the district where
compliance is required—and also, after a motion is transferred, the issuing court—may hold in
contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena
or an order related to it.”).
The Court notes that in reaching its decision in this matter, it reviewed all the filings in this
case from the Northern District of Georgia, including Rowland’s brief in opposition to Plaintiff’s
motion, as well as the filings and arguments in the North Carolina Case. In addition, as previously
stated, although Rowland was not present at this Court’s March status conference in the North
Carolina Case, the Court carefully and thoroughly considered his privacy concerns before ordering
further forensic evaluation of his computer. Therefore, the Court is satisfied that Rowland has
been afforded due process in this matter.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case and for Further
Forensic Examination (Doc. No. 12), which this Court construes as a motion to compel compliance
with this Court’s March 14, 2017, Order, is GRANTED. The Court COMPELS Rowland to
release a copy of the neutral examiner’s forensic image of his computer to Plaintiff and Defendant
by 5 p.m. on Friday, May 19, 2017, and any additional forensic evaluation shall be conducted
pursuant to and in compliance with this Court’s March 14, 2017, Order. Rowland is further
cautioned that failure to comply with this Order could result in this Court holding him in
contempt pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for Plaintiff shall electronically serve this Order
on all counsel of record in the Northern District of Georgia case, including Rowland’s counsel, by
5 p.m. on Thursday, May 18, 2017.

The Clerk’s Office is respectfully directed to file a copy of this Order in the related case in
the Western District of North Carolina: Legacy Data Access, LLC v. Mediquant, Inc., Case No.
3:15-cv-584-FDW-DSC.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: May 17, 2017