Tag:Early Conference/Discovery Plan

1
Bird v. Wells Fargo Bank (E.D. Cal., 2017)
2
Verint Sys. Inc. v. Red Box Recorders Ltd., 14-cv-5403, 2016 WL 1644373 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2016)
3
Coles Wexford Hotel, Inc. v. Highmark, Inc., No. 10-1609 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 20, 2016)
4
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation (District of Arizona, 2016)
5
First Niagara Risk Management v. Folino (United States District Court, Eastern District Pennsylvania., 2016)
6
7
Siriano v. Goodman Mfg. Co., L.P., No. 2:14-cv-1131, 2015 WL 8259548 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 9, 2015)
8
Themis Bar Review, LLC v. Kaplan, Inc., No. 14CV208-L (BLM), 2015 WL 3397877 (S.D. Cal. May 26, 2015)
9
Strauch v. Computer Sciences Corp., No. 3:14 CV 956 (JBA), 2015 WL 7458506 (D. conn. Nov. 24, 2015)
10
FDIC v. Bowden, No. CV413-245, 2014 WL 2548137 (S.D. Ga. June 6, 2014)

Bird v. Wells Fargo Bank (E.D. Cal., 2017)

Key Insight: Conduct discovery in good faith; Maintain a civil tone in communications; Purge of emails

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI; email; SMS; Text messages

Keywords: Good Faith; Proportionality; Meet and confer; Rule 16 – Scope of discovery; Purge of emails; Complete breakdown of discovery

View Case Opinion

Verint Sys. Inc. v. Red Box Recorders Ltd., 14-cv-5403, 2016 WL 1644373 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2016)

Key Insight: Court affirmed order of Magistrate Judge declining request for additional discovery based on Defendant?s alleged violation of the parties? protocol for discovery. Where parties agreed that each would disclose the eight custodians ?most likely? to have discoverable ESI, Plaintiff claimed that Defendant failed to name its VP of North American sales in a ?systematic and pervasive effort? to prevent the disclosure of discoverable documents. Magistrate Judge reasoned that Plaintiff needed to explain why its proposed custodians were better than those identified by Defendant and permitted Plaintiff to conduct a test search at its expense, which uncovered few additional documents. Magistrate Judge held that absent a showing that Defendant violated the protocol, it should be enforced, noting that ?for good or ill? Plaintiff had agreed to limit the searches. Affirming the order, the District Court noted that the protocol required the identification of custodians ?most likely? to have discoverable information (describing the ?before-the-fact perspective?) and not the custodians that IN FACT had the most discoverable ESI and also that Plaintiff had failed to take up the Magistrate Judge?s invitation to provide additional search terms for the test, which may have identified additional information to bolster their position

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from 8 custodians “most likely” to have responsive information

Coles Wexford Hotel, Inc. v. Highmark, Inc., No. 10-1609 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 20, 2016)

Key Insight: The special master considered relevancy to be as broad as the subject matter, which is broader than the scope of discovery contemplated by Rule 26… did not satisfy its burden to show that the information it requests from Highmark is relevant, the court is not required to analyze whether that request is proportional to this case

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Keywords: Reasonably Calculated

View Case Opinion

In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation (District of Arizona, 2016)

Key Insight: proportionality with regards to relevancy

Nature of Case: Products Liability

Electronic Data Involved: Communications between foreign entities that sell the product and foreign regulatory bodies regarding the products

Keywords: Proportionality, marginally relevant, relevancy

View Case Opinion

First Niagara Risk Management v. Folino (United States District Court, Eastern District Pennsylvania., 2016)

Key Insight: Proportionality, Fraud

Nature of Case: Non-compete enforcement

Electronic Data Involved: scope of discovery

Keywords: Sedona principles

View Case Opinion

Siriano v. Goodman Mfg. Co., L.P., No. 2:14-cv-1131, 2015 WL 8259548 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 9, 2015)

Key Insight: Applying the proportionality factors in Rule 26(b)(1) (including specific contemplation of Defendants? ?corporate resources? and the ?potentially very large? amount in controversy) and reasoning that the Sixth Circuit has held that ?limiting the scope of discovery is appropriate when compliance ?would prove unduly burdensome,? not merely time-consuming or expensive? and that Defendants failed to propose an alternative method of discovery ?enabling some lesser degree of production,? the court directed the parties to cooperate and indicated it would schedule a conference to discuss ?whether and to what extent discovery should proceed in phases?

Nature of Case: Putative class action re: design or manufacturing defect

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Strauch v. Computer Sciences Corp., No. 3:14 CV 956 (JBA), 2015 WL 7458506 (D. conn. Nov. 24, 2015)

Key Insight: Court addressed parties? disagreement regarding a search and production protocol and considering three options presented by Plaintiff (1) ?sampling and iterative refinement?; 2) a quick peek at all documents to designate a limited number for production; or 3) production of all documents with search hits subject to a clawback agreement) and defendant?s resistance based in proportionality, reasoned that ?[g]iven that there are 1,047 opt-in plaintiffs, ?potentially hundreds more as class members? in the four states . . . and a possible verdict in eight or nine digits if plaintiffs are successful, defendant?s proportionality argument is unavailing?; court ordered defendant to search files of 8 custodians using its own proposed terms (thus creating a presumption of relevancy) and further ordered that defendant could remove documents from production ?only if they are clearly and undeniably irrelevant? or privileged

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESi

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.