Even companies that are not litigants sometimes find themselves faced with e-discovery obligations owing to receipt of third-party subpoenas issued under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In such circumstances, companies often assumed that courts would treat them favorably with respect to discharging their e-discovery obligations. A recent federal court decision should serve as a wake-up call to companies that find themselves on the receiving end of a subpoena, as courts may very well hold them to the same standard as parties and require prompt and complete compliance with such subpoenas.
‘St. Jude’
In St. Jude Medical S.C. v. Janssen-Counotte,1 the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon was asked to rule on a motion to compel compliance with a third-party subpoena. In the principal case pending before another court,2 St. Jude, a medical technology company, sued Louise Marie Janssen-Counotte (Janssen), a former employee in its Belgium and Netherlands offices, for “theft and threatened misappropriation of trade secrets and other confidential information.”3
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
