Profit Point Tax Techs., Inc. v. DPAD Grp., LLP
Profit Point Tax Techs., Inc. v. DPAD Grp., LLP
2021 WL 1968204 (W.D. Pa. 2021)
April 22, 2021
Stickman IV, William S., United States District Judge
Summary
The Court ordered an independent forensic examination of Defendants' computers and ESI to ensure that all responsive documents in Defendants' possession and control are identified and produced. The parties are to provide a joint status report to the Court on May 6, 2021, and the independent computer forensics expert is to obtain forensic images of Defendants' computers, hard drives, storage devices and any other devices that have a reasonable likelihood of containing discoverable data.
Additional Decisions
PROFIT POINT TAX TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
DPAD GROUP, LLP, JOHN MANNING, and DANIEL STEELE, Defendants
v.
DPAD GROUP, LLP, JOHN MANNING, and DANIEL STEELE, Defendants
Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-698
United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Filed April 22, 2021
Counsel
Audrey K. Kwak, Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, Robert J. Hannen, Clark Hill PLC, Pittsburgh, PA, David B. Willis, Pro Hac Vice, Manning Gross & Massenburg LLP, Boston, MA, Jeffrey Joseph Lorek, Clark Hill PLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.Brad A. Funari, Alex Mahfood, Reed Smith LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendants.
Stickman IV, William S., United States District Judge
ORDER OF COURT
*1 Plaintiff, Profit Point Tax Technologies, Inc. (“PPTT”), is pursuing claims against Defendants DPAD Group, LLP (“DPAD”), John Manning (“Manning”), and Daniel Steele (“Steele”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for alleged breach of contract (Count I), breach of fiduciary duty (Count II), unjust enrichment (Count III) (against defendant DPAD only), intentional misrepresentation (Count VI), and negligent misrepresentation (Count VII). (ECF No. 27). PPTT's claims arise from Defendants’ alleged usurpation of PPTT's business through the use of PPTT's confidential information and other resources in soliciting PPTT's clients. Defendants, in turn, are asserting counterclaims against PPTT for alleged breach of contract (Counterclaims, Count I), breach of a release (Counterclaims, Count II), breach of contract in the alternative (Counterclaims, Count III), and unjust enrichment (Counterclaims, Count IV). (ECF No. 101). Pending before the Court are three discovery motions filed by PPTT (ECF Nos. 153, 155, and 158) and two Reports and Recommendations filed by Special Master Michael J. Betts (ECF Nos. 178 and 179).
AND NOW, this 22 day of April 2021, having conducted a de novo review of this matter, including reviewing the record and parties’ pleadings, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants’ Objections (ECF No. 179) and Motion for a Hearing (ECF No. 184). The Court hereby ADOPTS Special Master Betts’ well-reasoned Reports and Recommendations (ECF Nos. 178 and 179) - that were formulated after a thorough and comprehensive review of the various discovery disputes – as its Opinion. It wholeheartedly agrees with his analysis and recommendations.
First, the Court hereby DENIES PPTT's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 155). At this juncture, Defendants Manning and Steele will not be required to reappear for further depositions, Furthermore, the parties’ respective requests for an award of fees and costs in relation to litigating the motion is DENIED.
Second, the Court hereby GRANTS PPTT's Motion to Compel Forensic Examination (ECF No. 153) as well as PPTT's Third Motion to Compel Forensic Examination (ECF No. 158) insofar as it GRANTS an independent forensic examination of Defendants’ computers and ESI. The Court concurs with Special Master Betts that “Defendants have left the Court with little choice but to order a forensic examination, in the interest of ensuring that all responsive documents in Defendants’ possession and control are identified and produced.” (ECF No. 179, p. 17). Defendants are responsible for payment of the fees and costs charged by the independent computer forensics expert. The independent computer forensics expert is to obtain forensic images of Defendants’ computers, hard drives, storage devices and any other devices that have a reasonable likelihood of containing discoverable data. The parties are hereby ORDERED:
1. To meet and confer by May 6, 2021, concerning the designation of an independent computer forensics expert and the search terms to be used in searching for responsive documents. The parties are to provide a joint status report to the Court on May 6, 2021, If the parties cannot agree, the Court will select the expert and/or decide the search terms.
*2 2. The independent computer forensics expert must agree to and sign a confidentiality order.
3. Counsel will provide the list of agreed upon or court-ordered search terms to the independent computer forensics expert and the expert will apply the search terms to the forensic images.
4. The results of the search and electronic copies of the documents responsive to the search terms will be provided to Defendants’ counsel.
5. Within twenty-one (21) days thereafter, Defendants are directed to review the search results provided by the independent expert and identify all documents responsive to PPTT's Requests for Production of Documents (subject to the limitations recognized in ECF Nos. 69 and 83) and to produce all responsive documents to PPTT, except for any documents withheld on grounds of privilege. Any withheld documents are to be identified on a privilege log provided to PPTT's counsel.
Third, the Court DENIES PPTT's request that the Court issue an order authenticating the “Boston Documents.” (ECF No. 153).
Fourth, the Court GRANTS PPTT's request for an award of fees and costs incurred in connection with its motions (ECF Nos. 153 and 158). Defendants had the opportunity to perform their own forensic search of their ESI in order to ensure that they identified all responsive documents in their possession. Their failure to do so necessitated PPTT's motions, and the Court ordering a forensic examination based on its concerns about whether Defendants’ discovery production was complete.
Lastly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ request for an award of fees and costs incurred in opposing PPTT's motions (ECF Nos. 153 and 158).