ML Fashion, LLC v. Nobelle GW, LLC
3:21-cv-00499
D. Conn.May 25, 2022Background
- Plaintiffs ML Fashion, LLC and ML Retail, LLC allege defendants stole a desktop and laptop containing trade secrets and seek a forensic review of those two computers.
- Defendants initially objected to producing the computers (relevance, proportionality, privilege); after a joint status report defendants agreed to produce the machines but later limited certain categories via a proposed quarantine list.
- Plaintiffs filed a second motion to compel forensic inspection and sought Rule 37(a)(5) fees; the motion was referred to the magistrate judge and fully briefed with hearings and supplemental submissions.
- The Court found plaintiffs likely to locate relevant evidence only on the computers and that defendants’ relevancy objections lacked sufficient specificity, so it granted the motion in part and imposed narrowed procedures for the forensic review.
- The Court ordered targeted searches and protective procedures (attorney’s-eyes-only reports, privilege logs, meet-and-confer on search terms) for categories including Realtime POS, the info@shopnobelle.com account, TeamViewer recordings, web browser histories, and LogMeIn; the Court reserved ruling on the contents of the “Steph reports” folder and on fee allocation pending supplemental briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiffs' Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a forensic inspection of the two computers should be compelled | Relevant evidence (trade secrets, logins, sales) likely resides only on the machines; no other way to obtain some data | Ownership dispute and relevancy/proportionality and privilege objections; some responsive materials already produced | Granted in part: forensic review compelled because plaintiffs met relevance burden and defendants’ objections lacked specificity; scope narrowed |
| Scope of Realtime POS data to be searched | Entire POS may show transfers, sales, vendors, customers and evidence of misuse of trade secrets; no temporal limit | Full dump disproportionate; would reveal all Nobelle transactions and Nobelle trade secrets; some sales reports already produced | Limited to transactions tied to SKUs plaintiffs identify as inventory originating from ML Fashion and to items reflecting plaintiffs’ identified trade secrets; defendants may first review and privilege-log |
| Access to info@shopnobelle.com email account | Account may contain communications about inventory from ML Fashion or competitive products; produce PST for search | Not relevant; responsive info already produced and account would expose customer lists | Forensic expert to create PST for attorney’s-eyes-only review; parties to agree on search terms; defense to prepare privilege log |
| TeamViewer recordings (videoconferences) | Recorded meetings discussing Nobelle operations, inventory, customers, vendors may contain relevant admissions | Counsel says recordings contain no relevant info (based on client representations) | Produce a version for defense counsel to review and privilege-log by timestamp; forensic expert to produce relevant portions to plaintiffs thereafter |
| Web browser histories | May show researching competitive products, vendors, employees, or use of plaintiffs’ trade secrets | Defense resists third-party counsel viewing histories but concedes limited review preferable to withholding | Forensic expert to produce a report for attorney’s-eyes-only; parties to identify relevant items and meet-and-confer on disputes |
| LogMeIn remote-access software | Logs could show attempts to access ML Fashion systems and therefore are central to misappropriation and CFAA claims | Used only to access Nobelle POS; forensic review would reveal Nobelle proprietary data | Forensic review compelled with limits: attorney’s-eyes-only report, search-term narrowing, and defense privilege log |
| "Steph reports" folder contents | Likely contains sales reports and other items showing sales of ML-origin inventory and damages evidence | Folder contains Nobelle sales reports or other proprietary business records; some reports already produced | Court could not assess relevance from submissions; ordered defense to file supplemental brief explaining withholding within 14 days; fee issue reserved |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, 517 F.3d 76 (2d Cir.) (district court has broad discretion over discovery scope)
- Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (1998) (Rule 26 vests trial judge with broad discretion to tailor discovery)