FRCP 26(b)(1) Scope Defined by Relevance and Proportionality (effective Dec. 1 – Page 2

Federal Trade Commission v. American Screening, LLC (E.D. Mo. 2021)

Jul 07 2021

Key Insight: Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendants to produce internal emails in litigation over false advertising and the FTC Act; Defendants had previously objected to Plaintiff’s discovery requests without disclosing if responsive materials were withheld on the basis of their objections. Defendants responded that use of 58 search terms provided by Plaintiff yielded over 7,000,000 results, and that Plaintiff’s request(s) were overbroad, irrelevant, vague, ambiguous and burdensome. The Court rejects these assertions, granting Plaintiff’s Motion and holding that Defendants must search for and produce the information sought by Plaintiff.

Nature of Case: Antitrust, False Advertising, Consumer Protection

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Case Summary

Krishnan v. Cambia Health Solutions, Inc. (W.D. Wash. 2021)

Jun 23 2021

Key Insight: Defendant cannot be compelled to produce text messages from employees’ personal cell phones because they did not have possession, custody, or control of the devices. An employer has possession, custody, or control of a cell phone when the employer issued the cell phone, the cell phone is used for business purposes, and the employer has a legal right to obtain communications from the cell phone.

An email does not become privileged simply by including counsel as a recipient to an email. If the email was not sent with the purpose of obtaining legal advice, it is not privileged.

An independent forensic examination of electronic devices for electronic communications is appropriate when a party intentionally delays or withholds relevant and discoverable communications.

Nature of Case: Wrongful Termination, Employment Law

Electronic Data Involved: Text Messages, Email

Case Summary

Allen v. PPE Casino Resorts Maryland, LLC (D. Md. 2021)

Jun 14 2021

Key Insight: Plaintiffs sought a protective order to prevent defendant from obtaining ESI from five different social media platforms they were active on. The court found that while a plaintiff’s social media postings could be relevant to a claim for “garden variety” emotional distress damages, some caution was necessary, such that a “deeper dive” into social media postings may be justified only in cases involving “severe and specific emotional distress” allegations. Since plaintiff alleged “garden variety” emotional distress stemming from defendant’s allegedly wrongful conduct, the discovery must be narrowed as follows: “specific references to serious, non-transient emotional distress in connection with the incidents described in their Complaint,” i.e., diagnosable conditions, visits to professionals for treatment of distress, treatment regimens and conversations regarding same; time frame limited from date contained in complaint of onset of difficulties to the date of filing of complaint; production limited to information found in a typical download of data from plaintiffs’ own accounts and plaintiffs “need not engage in extraordinary efforts in obtaining responsive information.”

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Social media posts

Case Summary

Lake v. Charlotte County Board of County Commisioners (M.D. Fla. 2021)

Jun 09 2021

Key Insight: Communications between a party and its hired legal consultant are work product if they are generated in anticipation of litigation. Work product containing mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories concerning the litigation is rarely discoverable and enjoy “near absolute immunity.” Documents subpoenaed from the legal consultant still retain work product privilege.

Instead of providing privilege logs, the court allowed the legal consultants to categorically withhold or redact privileged communications so long as they provided a certification that none of withheld or redacted documents were distributed to or reviewed by any other third parties. In lieu of such certification, the legal consultants would have to produce a privilege log.

Nature of Case: Property, Eminent Domain

Electronic Data Involved: Email, Electronic Communications

Case Summary

AnywhereCommerce, Inc. v. Ingenico, Inc. (D. Mass. 2021)

Jun 03 2021

Key Insight: The court granted reconsideration of plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of documents in the possession of a corporate defendant in France. In a prior order, the court found that the GDPR did not preclude the court from ordering defendants to produce evidence, but based the order on plaintiffs’ representation that much of the requested information was located in the U.S. and therefore in the possession of domestic defendants. Thus, the court bifurcated its analysis to exclude any documents in the possession of French defendants. On reconsideration, plaintiffs claimed the important and relevant documents were located in France. Applying the factors from Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 442(1)(c), the court found they weighed in favor of disclosure, together with the entry of a protective order that would protect France’s interests under the GDPR.

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI generally

Case Summary

Maurer v. Sysco Albany, LLC (N.D.N.Y. 2021)

May 27 2021

Key Insight: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants to produce electronically stored information responsive to specific keyword searches as well as predictive coding. Defendants opposed the Motion on the basis that the information sought was overbroad, and not proportional or relevant to the litigation. Defendants proposed their own electronically stored information “search protocol”.

The Court partially granted Plaintiff’s Motion, allowing specific keyword searches and search methods requested by Plaintiff. Notably, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to utilize predictive coding in the search for electronically stored information.

Nature of Case: Wrongful Termination, Disability Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic Documents, Emails,

Case Summary

Aviles v. S&P Global, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2021)

May 24 2021

Key Insight: Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel to allow them unfettered access to all information located on a server. Defendant objected, claiming that Plaintiffs had no legal right to the server, and information on the server was irrelevant, confidential and/or privileged. The Court found that the request (Motion to Compel) was overbroad and premature, and denied Plaintiffs’ Motion.

Nature of Case:Fraud, Shareholder Suit, Diversity Jurisdiction

Electronic Data Involved: Hard Drive, Server,

Case Summary

D’Agostin v. Fitness Int’l, LLC (D. Conn. May, 12, 2021)

May 21 2021

Key Insight: The scope of discovery for Plaintiff is limited to requesting information regarding accidents involving falls in locker rooms with tile surfaces in Defendant’s facilities that occurred up to five years prior to the accident giving rise to litigation. Allowing Plaintiff to expand the scope to any tiled floor(s) within Defendant’s facilities would move discovery beyond the focal point of litigation.

Nature of Case: Premises Liability

Electronic Data Involved: N/A

Case Summary

Boegh v. Harless (W.D. Ky. 2021)

May 13 2021

Key Insight: The pro se plaintiff was ordered to produce social media (Facebook) content relating to the events at issue in the amended complaint. Based on his public Facebook posts, plaintiff commented extensively on the case and identified evidence and witnesses. Plaintiff argued that defendants already had the information from the public posts, but the court found there is a strong indication plaintiff was withholding relevant and discoverable evidence that was private in his account.

Nature of Case: Civil rights – personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Social media

Case Summary

Hall v. Marriott Int’l, Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2021)

May 12 2021

Key Insight: This is a putative consumer class action alleging that defendant engaged in false and deceptive advertising in the way it represents the prices for its hotel rooms, services, and amenities. The court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel, finding that the revenue data sought by plaintiffs was relevant to damages—in how damages will be ascertained and how a damages model will be provided. Additionally, discovery regarding the fees charged (including: destination, amenity, resort, destination amenity fee, wi-fi, parking, and other fees) were relevant to understand the nature of the fees and the relationship to defendant’s revenues and determine the scope of the case for settlement discussions. The court also ordered defendant to obtain the requested revenue data from franchised hotels if it has a right to access the financial data through an audit or other contractual provision with the franchisee. Policies and procedures and consumer complaints relating to the charging of fees were also ordered to be produced.

Nature of Case: Consumer Class Action

Electronic Data Involved: Financial Data

Case Summary

Tag:FRCP 26(b)(1) Scope Defined by Relevance and Proportionality (effective Dec. 1