FRCP 26(b)(1) Scope in General (effective Dec. 1, 2015)

Consultus, LLC v. CPC Commodities (W.D. Mo. 2022)

Feb 04 2022

Key Insight: Plaintiffs argue that defendants’ claims of privilege should be overruled due to the crime-fraud exception. Defendants withheld emails claiming work product and attorney-client privilege. Plaintiffs have not argued that the emails are not covered by either the work product doctrine or the attorney-client privilege. The purpose of the crime-fraud exception is to assure that the “seal of secrecy” between lawyer and client does not extend to communications “made for the purpose of getting advice for the commission of a fraud or crime.” In order to avail itself of the crime-fraud exception, the party seeking disclosure must satisfy a threshold showing of “a factual basis adequate to support a good faith belief by a reasonable person that the [party asserting the privilege] was engaged in intentional fraud and communicated with counsel in furtherance of the fraud.” The court found that plaintiffs’ assertions do not satisfy the threshold showing as they amount to conjecture since there is no other evidence that the communications were made in furtherance of a crime or fraud.

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Case Summary

America West Bank Members v. State of Utah (D. Utah 2021)

Nov 10 2021

Key Insight: Plaintiff filed a motion to compel after learning through the discovery process that defendants purged or lost emails and documents. Plaintiff sought “discovery on discovery” to discern the identities of individuals whose emails would have been responsive if those emails were still available, the identification of documents or categories of documents no longer available, and an explanation as to why other responsive documents were not produced. The court granted plaintiff’s request but found it “strictly limited to the purged former employee email accounts.” No additional depositions were permitted and plaintiff’s fourteen interrogatories on this topic were “neither reasonable nor proportional” to the limited nature of the discovery needed.

Nature of Case: Civil rights

Electronic Data Involved: Email and documents

Case Summary

Axis Insurance Company v. American Specialty Insurance & Risk Services, Inc. (N.D. Ind. 2021)

Key Insight:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel sought missing documents and communications from, and the correction of metadata “issues” from Defendant and its parent company (via third party subpoena), and sought an award of attorney’s fees and costs. The Court partially granted the Motion, requiring Defendant to produce responsive communications and documents in its possession, and to conduct a search for such documents and communications, and provide an affidavit detailing the steps it took to search for said items.

The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel insofar as it sought the metadata of documents responsive to its initial requests for production. Regarding the third party subpoena to Defendant’s parent company, the Court found that the office of the parent company subject to the subpoena was outside of the Court’s jurisdiction and consequently, denied Plaintiff’s Motion insofar as it sought to enforce the subpoena. Finally, Court awarded Plaintiff fees and costs regarding the missing documents, but not the “issues” with metadata.

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, Metadata, PDFs

Case Summary

Am. Mun. Power, Inc. v. Voith Hydro, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00708 -ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio June 4, 2018)

Dec 01 2018

Key Insight: Which search terms are to be used to identify responsive ESI

Nature of Case: Construction litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

View Case Opinion

Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp., No. 1:17-cv-01973 (N.D. Ill. May 17, 2018)

Dec 01 2018

Key Insight: Discovery should be proportional and limited to the issue

Nature of Case: Intellectual Property (trade secrets)

Electronic Data Involved: All electronic data

View Case Opinion

The Physicians Alliance Corporation v. Wellcare Health Insurance of Arizona, Inc, et al., No. 3:16-cv-00203-SDD-RLB (M.D. La. Feb. 27, 2018)

Dec 01 2018

Key Insight: Discovery costs must be proportional to the amount in controversy ($20 million in dispute allows for at least $13,000 in discovery costs)

Nature of Case: Contract breach

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents/communications

Youngevity Int’l Corp. v. Smith, No. 16-cv-704-BTM-JLB (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: 4.2 million pages of keyword “”hit”” documents produced without review, but designated “”Attorney Eyes Only.

Nature of Case: unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: 4.2 million pages of keyword “”hit”” documents

View Case Opinion

Brown v. Ferguson, No. 4:15CV00831 ERW, 2017 WL 386544 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 27, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: Court clarified discoverability of relevant social media content but indicated that disclosure of passwords was not required and not permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Electronic Data Involved: Social Media/social network (Facebook, etc.)

View Case Opinion

Rutledge-Plummer v. SCO Family of Servs., No. 15-CV-2468 (MKB) (SMG), 2017 WL 570765 (E.D. N.Y. Feb. 13, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: Plaintiff also sought production of all emails between 8 named individuals dating from August 1, 2013 to the present (December 2016). The court found the scope of this request (lacking any search terms or subject matter restrictions) was too burdensome when weighed against the potential benefit of production. Plaintiff narrowed her request to docs that related to her and limited the date range during oral argument, however the court found that this was still too broad and too close to the close of discovery to be permitted. Furthermore, Defendant had already produced emails relating to Plaintiff from most of the 8 custodians and had written to Plaintiff suggesting she propose search terms if she sought additional discovery. Plaintiff?s counsel, whose representation started after Defendant?s letter to Plaintiff, did not review Defendant?s earlier discovery responses and waited 10 months before requesting the additional discovery (using the overbroad parameters). The court denied Plaintiffs request except for certain documents referenced in depositions that were not produced. The court also denied Plaintiffs overly broad request for ?all documents pertaining to policies, procedures, and guidelines related to Defendant?s computers, computer systems, electronic data and electronic media? as too burdensome.

Nature of Case: Motion to Compel in employment discrimination action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

TetraVue, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., No. 14cv2021-W (BLM), 2017 WL 1008788 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: Defendant moved to compel Plaintiff to produce additional documents, supplement discovery responses, and remove non-responsive documents from their production. Plaintiff had not been able to obtain the entire underlying action file from former counsel, and argued they do not have actual control over the documents. The court found Plaintiffs did have ?possession, custody or control? of the file under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 (even though counsel had not been cooperative in turning the materials over) and granted Defendant?s motion to compel production of additional non-privileged and responsive documents. Plaintiffs were ordered to obtain the file and provide supplemental responses to Defendant?s RFPs. Defendant asserted Plaintiff?s previous production was a ?data dump? without an index (and contained numerous non-responsive documents), and did not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Plaintiffs contended that Defendant did not request a specific format and that they complied with the discovery order and produced their ESI in a proper format (PDF). Plaintiffs also claimed that Defendant?s request to have Plaintiff organize their production based on RFPs would be disproportionate – the production was in date order, allowing Defendant to ?organize, index and search the data at a low cost and with little effort.? The court agreed, finding the production adequate and cited the advisory committee?s notes for Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 (?contemplated that the parties requesting ESI would be able to organize it themselves?). Finally, the court denied Defendant?s motion for supplemented interrogatory responses, finding the Plaintiffs? responses adequate (the burden of finding the answer would be ?substantially the same for either party?).

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:FRCP 26(b)(1) Scope in General (effective Dec. 1, 2015)