H.J. Heinz Co. v. Starr Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
H.J. Heinz Co. v. Starr Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
2015 WL 12792025 (W.D. Pa. 2015)
July 31, 2015
Schwab, Arthur J., United States District Judge
Summary
The court denied Starr's motion to compel the production of Heinz's instant messages and the voicemail of Mr. Ascher and Mr. Keatings. However, the court ordered Heinz to interview 10-12 other custodians and produce any non-privileged, non-duplicative and relevant voicemails to Starr. The court also denied Starr's motion to compel the production of text messages from Mr. Keatings' and Mr. Ascher's personal mobile devices, but ordered Heinz to interview the 10-12 other custodians to determine if they used personal mobile devices to send or receive relevant text messages.
Additional Decisions
H.J. Heinz Company, Plaintiff / Counterclaim/Defendant,
v.
Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
v.
Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-00631-AJS
United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Signed July 31, 2015
Counsel
Jared Zola, Blank Rome LLP, Robyn Michaelson, Dickstein Shapiro LLP, New York, NY, James R. Murray, Blank Rome LLP, District of Columbia, DC, Kevin P. Allen, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellot, Sabrina J. Hudson, H.J. Heinz Company, Pittsburgh, PA, Omid Safa-Esfahani, Dickstein Shapiro LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff / Counterclaim/Defendant.Genevieve Aguilar Reardon, John Nadas, Robert S. Frank, Jr., Kevin J. Finnerty, Matthew B. Arnould, Choate, Hall, & Stewart LLP, Boston, MA, Robert J. Marino, J. David Ziegler, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
Schwab, Arthur J., United States District Judge
ORDER OF COURT
*1 AND NOW, this 31st day of July, 2015, upon consideration of Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company's (“Starr”) Motion to Compel Production of Electronically Stored Information, and having appointed Special Master Susan A. Ardisson to review the issues therein and prepare a Report and Recommendation, and having considered said Report and Recommendation, and the record, de novo, and good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is adopted as an Opinion and Order of the Court, and that the following is hereby ordered:
1. Starr's motion to compel the production of Heinz's instant messages is denied.
2. Starr's motion to compel Mr. Ascher's and Mr. Keatings' voicemail is denied.
3. H.J. Heinz Company, Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant (“Heinz”) is ordered to interview the 10-12 other custodians who may have potentially responsive voicemails relevant to Starr's Counterclaim for rescission to determine whether they saved voicemails relevant to Starr's rescission Counterclaim. To the extent that any of these other employees saved or retained non-privileged, non-duplicative and relevant voicemails, they shall be produced to Starr. Counsel for the parties shall meet and confer regarding the form of production of the voicemails.
4. Starr's motion to compel the production of text messages from Mr. Keatings' and Mr. Ascher's personal mobile devices is denied.
5. Heinz is ordered to interview the 10-12 other custodians to determine whether they used personal mobile devices to send or receive text messages relevant to Starr's Counterclaim for rescission. To the extent that any of these employees sent or received text messages on their personal mobile devices relevant to Starr's rescission Counterclaim, they shall be produced to Starr. Counsel for the parties shall meet and confer regarding an appropriate search protocol to protect the privacy interests of Heinz's employees.
SO ORDERED.