TransPerfect Global, Inc. v. Lionbridge Technologies, Inc.

Background

TransPerfect sought to compel documents under a third-party subpoena issued to Kirkland & Ellis LLP. The request concerned whether Kirkland should designate Ms. Lewis as an additional custodian—someone whose files would be searched and produced in discovery.

Parties’ positions

Kirkland argued that Ms. Lewis had never represented H.I.G. or Lionbridge and had instead worked on a separate, walled-off team for another bidder. Kirkland relied on Ms. Lewis’s sworn declaration and represented that she had no communications with H.I.G., Lionbridge, or the Kirkland attorneys representing them during the auction period.

Kirkland also argued that TransPerfect’s theories about access to duplicate documents and possible circumvention of clean-room restrictions were speculative. It stated that the court had previously dismissed TransPerfect’s claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act at the pleading stage because the amended complaint did not allege that the defendants exceeded access permitted by the confidentiality agreement. Kirkland further argued that it had agreed to search the files of nine attorneys, while H.I.G. and Lionbridge had agreed to produce relevant documents from 22 custodians, and that TransPerfect had not shown Ms. Lewis would provide unique relevant information.

Ruling

The court’s endorsement states: “request is denied.” Thus, the court denied TransPerfect’s request to compel the additional discovery. The supplied text does not include a separate explanation by Judge Denise L. Cote for that ruling, and the arguments described above are presented in Kirkland’s submission rather than as independent factual findings by the court.