Key Insight: “No-eyes-on” document production;
Nature of Case: Products Liability MDL
Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy and ESI productions;
Keywords: MDL; Discovery orders; Production
Key Insight: defendant argued that it had no obligation to respond to timely discovery requests because the due date of the discovery was after the discovery deadline.
Nature of Case: telemarketing violation
Electronic Data Involved: requests for admission
Keywords: discovery deadline, requests for admission
Key Insight: plaintiff violated the protective order by filing a pleading attaching confidential documents
Nature of Case: employment discrimintation
Electronic Data Involved: confidential documents protected under the protective order
Keywords: protective order, confidentiality
Key Insight: The requested business guidelines were relevant. The scope of discovery is very broad. A request for discovery is relevant “unless it is clear that the information sought can have no possible bearing upon the subject matter of the action.”
The court declined to find the guidelines so confidential that they cannot be produced. Defendants did not move for a protective order nor did they provide any evidence of harm that would result from producing the guidelines.
Attorney fees were awarded to Plaintiff because Defendant caused substantial delay in responding to discovery despite Plaintiff’s multiple good faith attempts to obtain the requested discovery.
Nature of Case: Breach of Contract
Electronic Data Involved: Business Guidelines, Business Policies
Key Insight: Defendants here have not described any harm that would result from producing the guidelines and have not sought a protective order, the Court declines to find the documents so confidential that they cannot be produced
Nature of Case: bad faith and fraudulent banking
Electronic Data Involved: general discovery responses, voicemails, loan documents, loan history, and communications
Keywords: fraud, trade secrets, incomplete responses, bad faith
Key Insight: enhancement of protective order to ensure heightened confidentiality of one document.
Nature of Case: breach of contract and false and misleading statements
Electronic Data Involved: confidentiality of proprietary aggregate data product
Keywords: protective order, heightened confidentiality
Key Insight: The litigation was over employment discrimination based on disability. Plaintiff brought the suit pro se. After Plaintiff failed to time respond to Defendant’s discovery requests, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment that was primarily based on Defendant’s failure to produce evidence of her claims a Motion for CR 11 sanctions was also filed.
Defendant based its Motions on Plaintiff’s failure to produce evidence of her purported disability, that she provided notification to her employer of the disability and/or that her employer failed to provide reasonable accommodation for her purported disability. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion and dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims and causes of action with prejudice. However, the Judge did not recommend imposing CR 11 sanctions against Plaintiff.
Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination, Disability Discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance Videos
Key Insight: Failure to respond to Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions
Nature of Case: American’s with Disabilities Act
Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy; Discussion logs
Keywords: Sanctions; Attorney’s fees; Bad Faith; Inherent power; Intent
Key Insight: The court denied Plaintiffs’ requests for additional text message discovery or the forensic imaging of cell phone data. The court emphasized the privacy implications of producing broad cell phone data, which often contain “the most intimate of persona details on a host of matters, many of which may be entirely unrelated to issues in specific litigation.”
The court recognized “a more narrowly tailored request, supported by a more specific showing of relevance, might be appropriate.” The court directed the parties to work together to come to an agreement regarding the scope of a “carefully tailored, relevant search for such data.” Only if the parties cannot reach an agreement, would the court intercede.
Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act, Employment Law
Electronic Data Involved: Text Messages, Cell Phone Data
Key Insight: good faith effort, a reasonable effort to respond must be made, obstructive and dilatory
Nature of Case: employment discrimination
Keywords: vague broad objections, Failing to fully investigate the case is not an excuse from making initial disclosures
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.