Key Insight: inadequate search and production, misrepresentation, failure to supplement, follow-up, failure to disclose
Nature of Case: patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: email, board meeting minutes, investor presentations
Keywords: monetary sanctions, needless burden, late disclosures, post-settlement order, misrepresentation, motion to show cause
Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel inspection of Defendant?s personal computer that was utilized for business where Plaintiff established that relevant information was likely stored there, where the information was potentially ?critical? to Plaintiff?s case (regarding whether Defendant had utilized Plaintiff?s confidential information), where there was ?no other avenue? to obtain the requested discovery, where the costs did not appear substantial, where Plaintiff?s counsel made a good faith effort at alternative resolutions before brining the motion, and?notably?where Defendant had previously agreed to the inspection (but later objected); court also granted access to Defendant?s email accounts, including disclosure of his passwords; as to both repositories, court ordered the parties? to agree on a search protocol/search terms that included allowing Defendant to review the results of the search prior to production
Nature of Case: Defendant’s alleged use of Plaintiff’s confidential files to underbid Plaintiff on various projects
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email
Key Insight: Where Defendant resisted searching certain emails arguing undue burden and that it was unlikely that responsive emails would be found but where no evidence of burden was submitted, where not even a cursory search of the emails was undertaken and where there were examples of the sorts of email sought produced from other employees, the court ordered Defendant to conduct the requested search; similarly, where Defendant offered no evidence of the alleged burden to review and produce the at-issue call recordings, where Plaintiff offered to bear the full cost of transcribing the messages, and where the court determined that the likelihood that the calls would be privileged was low, the court ordered Defendant to produce the raw audiofiles of its customer service calls and voicemail; notably, at the outset of its analysis the court noted that at least 10 attorneys had appeared for each party and that it was ?apparent that the issues at stake are significant,? including posing an ?existential risk? to Defendant and therefore concluded that ?any proportionality argument has a high bar to clear to be successful?
Nature of Case: Trademark infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Customer service emails, call recordings
Key Insight: Where Defendant formulated search terms and identified custodians unilaterally before undertaking its search and where plaintiff suspected the results were insufficient based on both the low volume of information produced and the failure to produce certain expected information (based on third parties? productions), the court considered Defendant?s multiple proposals for addressing the issue and determined that starting again, from scratch, was most appropriate; addressing whether the cost was disproportionate, court declined to characterize the costs as ?additional expense,? reasoning that Defendant ?should have resolved these issues before undertaking its unilateral search?
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Among other things, court denied motion for protective order upon finding that Plaintiffs were ?entitled to obtain basic information sufficient to determine whether searches were reasonably conducted and the results properly verified? even without ?evidence that specific documents were destroyed or withheld? and reasoned that ?the fact that [Defendant?s] attorney(s) conducted or supervised the searches does not protect such non-privileged information from disclosure?
Electronic Data Involved: Information re: efforts to preserve, search
Key Insight: Court ruled that defendants may, under the proportionality factors in 26(b)(1), limit their search to databases and central repositories rather than engage in custodial searches for all cases at the Defendant Fact Sheet (DFS) stage of the MDL due to the ?significant burden of the proposed custodial-file searches? and the less-than-certain benefits of such searches.? The Court noted Defendant?s acknowledgement that custodial searches would likely be ?warranted for a narrower group of cases at a later stage? and that plaintiffs were free to seek permission to engage in further discovery if information available in the structured databases was insufficient.
Nature of Case: Products Liability
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where an initial search of file names on a legacy drive (as opposed to the contents of the drive) did not identify ten responsive documents that were eventually produced after the close of discovery and a mere 7 days prior to trial, the court found that the search was an unreasonable inquiry under Rule 26(g) citing counsel?s failure to guide or monitor the employee conducting the search; the at-issue employee?s lack of experience conducting searches of large document repositories and the failure of counsel to ask the IT department to assist; and the objective unreasonableness of the search in light of the initial failure to search within the contents of the legacy drive and imposed monetary sanctions to address Plaintiff?s increased efforts as a result of the failure to timely produce the documents but reduced the award by 1/3 where Plaintiff would have had to expend some of the at-issue resources regardless and where Plaintiff failed to follow up when the employee who conducted the search indicated he did not know if he had searched within the files themselves
Electronic Data Involved: ESI from legacy drive
Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought production of specific folders from e-mail inboxes after defendant had already produced e-mails from those custodians as identified by keyword search terms r, the court found the request duplicative and denied plaintiff?s request. Where plaintiff sought to compel additional searches likely to capture information well beyond that to which plaintiff was entitled and resisted a compromise offer of running the searches with restrictive terms designed to weed out irrelevant information, the court granted the request for additional searches but also granted defendant?s request to include limiting terms to restrict the capture of irrelevant data. Where plaintiff requested a sworn affidavit detailing defendant?s litigation hold efforts including the ?specific actions? which hold notice recipients were directed to take and any enforcement efforts, the court agreed with defendant that specific actions and enforcement efforts were subject to attorney-client privilege but directed plaintiff to ?provide this information via ?sworn affidavit? in a manner which, does not invoke the work product doctrine or violate the attorney-client privilege OR to make a specific legal and factual showing [] as to any work product objection or attorney-client privilege claim? and also ordered production of the other requested information, including custodian names and document types subject to the hold.
Nature of Case: Professional Negligence
Electronic Data Involved: e-mail
Key Insight: Court granted in part Plaintiffs? motion to compel additional searching in two previously excluded timeframes, denying the motion as to documents generated at a time in which ?nothing of significance was happening? as indicated by Defendants and because the cost and burden of the requested discovery would violate the rule of proportionality but granting the motion as to information created after the filing of the complaint, where the court rejected Defendants? claim that nothing created after that time could have possibly been relevant and noted that Defendants failed to present any specific argument about undue burden, apart from having disassembled their review teams
Nature of Case: Breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: ESI from previously unsearched timeframes
Key Insight: Court declined to compel Defendant to conduct additional searches of witnesses? email accounts using 88 new search terms and excluding Plaintiff?s name finding that the request was ?overly broad and not proportional to the case? and reasoning that Plaintiff relied upon a multi-plaintiff case to justify her position and that she had not provided specifics regarding what she reasonably expected to find or shown that the information could not be found through other means, such as by asking additional questions of witnesses already scheduled for deposition ; court ordered Defendant to produce the relevant policies it operated under where Defendant claimed emails were deleted in the ordinary course of business according to Company policy, and that Defendant should also provide Plaintiff with the date of the deletion and the name of the person who made the deletion or the process of deletion, if known
Nature of Case: Wrongful termination
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.