NOLA Spice Designs, LLC v. Haydel Enters., Inc., 2013 WL 3974535 (E.D. La. Aug. 2, 2013). In this trademark infringement case, the plaintiff refused to disclose user names and passwords in depositions and written responses, and the defendant moved to compel the credentials to “all online web sites related to the issues in this litigation.” Additionally, the defendant sought to submit the plaintiff’s computers to an “exhaustive forensic examination” by an expert, with access to all electronic information, including archived or deleted content, from October 2009 to the present. Considering the request for user names and passwords, the court found that while there is no privacy interest in material published or posted on social media, the “ultra-broad requests” for all online account information went far beyond social media and would permit the defendant to “roam freely” through the oppositions’ personal and financial data. Turning to the defendant’s request for a forensic examination of the plaintiff’s computers, the court found such a request within the scope of discovery, but also subject to the proportionality limits of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). Aiming to avoid unduly intrusive discovery, the court stated that forensic examinations should be limited to situations where “the moving party has demonstrated that its opponent has defaulted in its discovery obligations by unwillingness or failure to produce relevant information.” Applied to the defendant’s request, the court ultimately found the defendant merely sought to “check that the opposition had been forthright in its discovery responses.” The court denied the defendant’s request for a forensic examination and motion to compel.