Court Orders Defendant Tennessee State Agencies to Produce Responsive ESI, Including All Metadata and Deleted Information; Potentially Shifts Costs to Defendants as Sanction for Failure to Implement Effective Litigation Hold and Other Discovery Miscues
John B. v. Goetz, 2007 WL 3012808 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 10, 2007)
This case is a class action on behalf of roughly 550,000 children who are entitled under federal law to medical services that include early and periodic screenings for their physical well being, including their dental and behavioral health needs, along with any necessary follow-up medical services. Through this action, plaintiffs seek to enforce their rights to such services under various federal statutes. Defendants in the case include Tennessee state officials who are in charge of the state programs for these services. To assist it in providing these services, the State enters into contracts with a number of Managed Care Contractors (“MCCs”). The MCCs are not parties in the suit.
Contemporaneous with the filing of the complaint, plaintiffs requested class certification and the parties agreed to entry of a Consent Decree to remedy plaintiff’s complaints and to certify the class. Lengthy and complex proceedings followed, including several show cause and contempt hearings.
In the latter half of 2006 and in early 2007, the court held a series of hearings and conferences on the parties’ discovery disputes, and ordered the production of certain electronically stored information (“ESI”) from the defendants. The court also held that the MCCs’ responsive records and ESI were within the possession, custody, and control of defendants, and required the defendants to obtain such information from the MCCs and produce it as well. Read More