Sievert Electric Service and Sales Company v. Storako, et al., No. 22 CV 6380 (N.D. Ill. July 24, 2025) (Kim, Mag. J.).
Magistrate Judge Kim issued a comprehensive discovery order in this Defend Trade Secrets Act case, addressing multiple motions to compel and highlighting important ESI and privilege issues.
Of particular interest, the Court rejected broad forensic imaging of personal cell phones as disproportionate but ordered narrower searches for relevant text and call records. The Court held that forensic imaging would capture vast amounts of irrelevant information including “pictures, videos, chat histories, application data, location data, internet evidence, and deleted content.”
The Court ordered production of documents related to a pre-lawsuit computer forensics investigation, rejecting claims of work product protection. The Court found that the investigation appeared to be conducted in the ordinary course of business rather than at attorney direction in anticipation of litigation. While attorney impressions and analysis could be withheld, technical and factual information from the investigation must be produced.
Regarding ESI production requirements, the Court adopted the majority view that Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i)’s organization requirements apply to both hard copy documents and ESI. The Court rejected arguments that ESI’s searchability eliminated the need for organization by request, holding that discovery responses have evidentiary value as party admissions requiring clear connections between requests and responses.