Swedish Institute, Inc. v. Lincoln Educ. Servs. Corp. et al.
- Cave
- 1:26-cv-05955
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Swedish Institute v. Lincoln Educ. Servs. Corp., Judge Cave granted Swedish Institute’s request for a discovery conference about computer-forensics costs.
Swedish Institute, Derrick Ruffin, and the other parties involved in the court-ordered computer-forensics process, because the court scheduled a conference about the examiner’s fees and discovery protocol.
What happened
In Swedish Institute, Inc. v. Lincoln Educ. Servs. Corp. et al., the parties had agreed to a court-ordered computer-forensics process except who would pay the examiner’s fees. The process would involve imaging applicable devices and data sources and removing Swedish Institute’s information from Derrick Ruffin’s devices.
Swedish Institute asked the court to require the parties to split the fees equally. Ruffin opposed that request, saying he could not afford the fees and that Swedish Institute should pay all of them. The letter asked the court to resolve the dispute through a discovery conference.
Judge Sarah L. Cave granted Swedish Institute’s request for a conference and scheduled it for August 26, 2026. The order did not itself state how the forensic fees would be allocated, and it directed the Clerk to close the request on the docket.
The detailed version
- Swedish Institute, Inc. v. Lincoln Educ. Servs. Corp. et al. · No. 1:26-cv-05955
- Cave
- Aug. 19, 2026
Background
Swedish Institute filed a letter motion asking for a discovery conference under the court’s individual rule and Local Civil Rule 37.2. The dispute concerned the payment of fees for a computer-forensics examination involving Defendant Derrick Ruffin’s devices and data sources.
On July 21, 2026, the court entered a consent order requiring Ruffin to make applicable devices and data sources available for forensic imaging. The order required the parties to agree on a forensic protocol and submit it to the court, and it directed Swedish Institute to draft the protocol. The parties agreed on the protocol’s terms except for the allocation of the forensic examiner’s fees.
Parties’ Positions
The proposed protocol provided that the parties would split the examiner’s costs and fees equally. Swedish Institute asked the court to require that equal split. It argued that Ruffin’s conduct caused the need for the examination and that the protocol included removal of Swedish Institute’s information from Ruffin’s devices.
Ruffin opposed any cost-sharing requirement. According to Swedish Institute’s letter, Ruffin said he could not afford the fees and asked Swedish Institute to pay all of them. Swedish Institute also stated that it had offered either to advance all costs if Ruffin turned over the relevant devices and data sources to Swedish Institute’s counsel, or to proceed with equal cost-sharing; according to the letter, Ruffin rejected both options.
Ruling
Judge Sarah L. Cave granted Swedish Institute’s request at Docket No. 51. The court scheduled a telephone conference for August 26, 2026, at 2:15 p.m. Eastern Time to discuss the parties’ discovery issue. The order did not decide whether the parties must split the forensic examiner’s fees, require Swedish Institute to pay all fees, or impose another allocation. The Clerk was directed to close Docket No. 51.
Classification and Significance
This is a procedural discovery order. It addressed the process for resolving a dispute about court-ordered computer forensics, rather than deciding the underlying allegations about trade secrets or determining the final allocation of the examiner’s fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.