FRCP 26(b)(1) Scope in General (effective Dec. 1, 2015) – Page 4

Perez v. Mueller, No. 13-C-13-2, 2016 WL 3360422 (E.D. Wis. May 27, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Defendants sought to compel discovery from the Secretary of the US Dept. of Labor, court found the proportionality factors in Rule 2(b)(1) ?easily tilt[ed] in favor of disclosure? reasoning that ?[t]he issues in this litigation are important from a public policy perspective, or at least they should be, lest the Secretary be engaging in years of unnecessary litigation at taxpayer expense? and also reasoning that the ?transaction at issue was for more than $13 million dollars? and that ?the federal government has unlimited resources? while Defendants were ?obviously financing their own defense.?

Nature of Case: ERISA

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Sharma v. BMW N. Amer. LLC, No. 13-cv-02274-MMC (KAW), 2016 WL 1019668 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court compelled production of requested document retention policies where it determined that the policies were relevant and ?may help Plaintiffs to determine the universe of responsive documents and evaluate any gaps in document production? and that the production was proportional to the needs of the case where the modest number of pages at issue rendered the burden of production ?likely minimal, while the benefit of such information would be substantial?

Nature of Case: Putative class action re: allegedly defective vehicles

Electronic Data Involved: Document retention policies

Duhigg v. Goodwill Indus., No. 8:15CV91, 2016 WL 4991480 (D. Neb. Sept. 16, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiff?s motion to compel the production of emails containing Plaintiff?s name as a search hit and granted in part Defendant?s motion for a protective order where Defendant established that the emails were not reasonably accessible in light of the time and minimum costs of production, estimated at $45,825, and where the court also found they were not proportional to the needs of the case; although the court found Plaintiff?s proposed terms overbroad (her name) the court disagreed with Defendant?s time limitation on its own search for emails where prior discriminatory acts, even if not actionable, could be used as background evidence and ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding appropriate search terms to be used to search the accounts of 3 custodians over a 4 year period

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Alaska Elec. Pension Fund v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 14-CV-7126 (JMF), 2016 WL 6779901 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Plaintiffs? broad request for documents previously produced by Defendants in prior investigations or produced to or received from any government agency, regulator, department, etc. related to the issues in the current investigation failed to withstand scrutiny to establish relevance beyond merely ?bear[ing] on? the issues in the investigation, particularly where Plaintiffs failed to point to any specific information that that would be found solely in the unproduced documents and not in the 1.5 million documents Defendants did produce from prior investigations (?At bottom, then, Plaintiffs? entire relevancy argument hinges on a general contention that every communication and work product related to the regulatory investigations is ?likely? to contain additional relevant information. But that sort of conclusory claim is insufficient to support such an expansive discovery request.?); court also concluded that the requested discovery was not proportional, but denied the motion without prejudice, allowing plaintiff an opportunity to renew their motion with ?narrower, more proper discovery requests.?

Nature of Case: Conspiracy to manipulate ISDAfix rates (government investigation)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI previously produced to government, all documents sent to/received from government related to issues in underlying investigation (including correspondence, subpoenas, CIDs, etc.)

Moll v Telesector Res. Grp., Inc., No. 04-CV-0805S(Sr), 2016 WL 6095792 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Addressing Plaintiffs? objection to a request for, essentially, all of Plaintiff?s Facebook content, the court cited Giacchetto v. Patchogue-Medford Union Free School Dist., No. 293 F.R.D. 112 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) for the proposition that ?routine status updates and/or communications on social networking websites are not, as a general matter, relevant to [plaintiff?s] claim for emotional distress damages, nor are such communications likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding the same,? but further reasoned that ?post specifically referencing? Plaintiff?s emotional distress or at-issue treatment were discoverable and should be produced

Nature of Case: Motion to compel in case alleging discrimination, harassment, hostile environment, retaliation and unequal pay in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law and the Equal Pay Act

Electronic Data Involved: Social media/social network (Facebook)

In re Bard IVC Filters Prod. Liab. Litig., —F.R.D.—, 2016 WL 4943393 (D. Ariz. Sept. 16, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: In this case, the parties disagreed on the discoverability of communications between Defendants? foreign subsidiaries and divisions and foreign regulators regarding the filters at issue in the case. Following analysis of the effects of the December 1, 2015 amendments on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and of the specific facts of the case, the court determined that the at-issue communications were ?only marginally relevant? and was persuaded that ?the burden of [the] foreign discovery would be substantial.? Thus, the court concluded that Defendants were not required to search their foreign entities for communications with foreign regulators. In the course of its discussion of the amendments, the court stated: “Amended Rule 26(b)(1) was adopted pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. ? 2072 et. seq. That statute provides that ‘[a]ll laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.’ Id., ? 2072(b). Thus, just as a statute could effectively overrule cases applying a former legal standard, the 2015 amendment effectively abrogated cases applying a prior version of Rule 26(b)(1). The test going forward is whether evidence is ‘relevant to any party?s claim or defense,’ not whether it is ‘reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.'”

In re Disposable Contact Lens AntiTrust Litig., No. 3:15-md-2626-J-20JRK, 2016 WL 6518660 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where the ?potential relevance? of the information sought was ?essentially undisputed,? but where Defendant claimed to have already spent $700,000 on discovery and that the request for 18 additional custodians could result in an expenditure of at least $1.5 million, court noted that the parties? dispute was essentially a question of proportionality and concluded a that two additional ?upper-management custodians? were warranted (as opposed to the seven requested) and also found that a sample of four sales manages was appropriate (as opposed to the eleven requested); as to Class Plaintiffs? request for a ?hit list? generated by applying the agreed-upon search terms to the collected materials, the court reasoned that in light of the number of custodians and the parties? agreement as to search terms, such a list seemed ?less valuable that it might otherwise be,? but ordered that if one was automatically generated, it should be produced

Nature of Case: Class Action

Electronic Data Involved: Additional Custodians

Kissing Camels Surgery Center, LLC v. Centura Health Corp., No. 12-cv-03012-WJM-NYW, 2016 WL 277721 (D. Colo. Jan. 22, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Plaintiffs objected to Defendants? ?duplicative? requests and claimed they had already produced responsive documents but provided Defendants with no guidance as to where such documents could be found within the voluminous production, the court acknowledged that it would ?ordinarily? conclude that Plaintiffs had no obligation to identify responsive documents but, citing the volume of data at issue, the ?asymmetry of information regarding the production between Plaintiffs,? the time the case had been pending, and the fact that additional discovery would be required, the court concluded that Plaintiff should provide additional information and ordered that Defendants would be permitted to identify ten categories of requested documents that Plaintiffs claimed to be duplicative and that Plaintiffs must then identify documents responsive to those requests

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Scott v. United States Postal Serv., No. 15-712-BAJ-EWD, 2016 WL 7440468 (M.D. La. Dec. 27, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court compelled production of limited social media contents after narrowing the requests to a more appropriate scope

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Social media/social network contents

In re Ex Parte Application of Global Energy Horizons Ltd., No. 14-3180, 2016 WL 1657889 (3d Cir. Apr. 26, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Third Circuit affirmed denial of Global Energy Horizon?s motion to compel reasoning that the District Court was ?on firm ground? in determining the burden imposed upon the non-party would ?likely have been intrusive and burdensome in violation of Rule 45 despite Global?s offer to pay for reasonable cost? where responding to the subpoena seeking ?all communications between [the non-party?s] 400 to 450 employees? and another entity and any financial documents relating to certain technology would require that each employee be interviewed and their hard drives be copied and reasoning that the District Court was reasonable in deciding not to modify the subpoena where the non-party had already ?spent thousands of dollars and substantial time? responding to prior requests; Circuit Court also affirmed lower court?s finding that non-party was under no duty to preserve emails where the record ?did not lead the court to conclude? that the non-party ?should have known that litigation was imminent? and ?Global never sought a litigation hold on [the non-party?s] electronically stored information?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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