Dig. Assurance Certification, LLC v. Pendolino » The Florida E-Discovery Case Law Database » Levin College of Law » University of Florida

Dig. Assurance Certification, LLC v. Pendolino

Dig. Assurance Certification, LLC v. Pendolino

Case Date: 09/29/2017
Citation: Dig. Assurance Certification, LLC v. Pendolino, Case No: 6:17-cv-72-Orl-41TBS, 2017 WL 4342316 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 29, 2017)
Court Type: Federal District
Court: Middle District of Florida (M.D. Fla.)
Judge: Federal Magistrate Judge: Thomas B. Smith
Rule(s): Rule 26; Rule 45

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel non-party discovery, and the non-party moved to quash Plaintiff’s subpoena.


The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel and granted non-party Lumesis’ motion to quash. The Court held that Plaintiff’s lack of specific evidence of harm and assertion that it lost a single client led to a belief that Plaintiff was proceeding with the lawsuit based on speculation. The Court opined discovery would be asymmetrical, as Defendant and Lumesis would bear the burden of the majority of discovery, and stated Lumesis’ offer to run hash values and keyword searches was sufficient to identify if Plaintiff’s confidential information existed on Lumesis’ system.

Relevant Documents:

Motion to Quash Subpoena (Doc. 67) 

Amended Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (Doc. 68)

Response to Amended Motion to Compel (Doc. 72) 

Response to Motion to Quash (Doc. 73) 

Order on Motion to Quash and Motion to Compel (Doc. 81) 


E-Discovery Issues: Motion to Compel, Motion to Quash
E-discovery Tags: Costs, De-Duplication, Forensic Analysis/Examination, Hash Value, Identical Copies, Indexing, Keyword Search, Non-Party Discovery, Possession or Control, Proportionality, Relevancy, Sedona Conference, Trade Secrets
E-discovery subjects: Computer, Database, Email, Hard drive, Internet usage, Removable Drive

Published: February 20th, 2018

Category: Uncategorized

Comments are closed.