FRCP 26(b)(2)(b) “Not Reasonably Accessible” – Page 11

Eckhardt v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2008 WL 111219 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 9, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff credibly argued that deposition testimony identified responsive but unproduced documents, court ordered defendant to certify that it had thoroughly searched for all responsive documents and to identify any documents or sets of documents that had been deleted, erased, or otherwise destroyed; although court would not require defendant to restore backup media at this juncture, it ordered defendant to identify what otherwise responsive but not readily accessible documents might be retained in archive form, on backup tapes/discs, or on any other backup media; court further ordered defendant to fully identify computers used by decision makers in plaintiff’s termination

Nature of Case: Alleged violations of Americans with Disabilities Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

Overlap Inc. v. Alliance Bernstein Invs., Inc., 2008 WL 5780994 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court found defendant failed to establish burden of proving ESI was not reasonably accessible where testimony established the relevant computer system could b searched in-house with ?minimal? time spent and ordered defendant to search for and produce the information requested and to bear the associated costs; court ordered search of backup tapes without deciding the issue of reasonable accessibility where plaintiff established ?good cause? for why the tapes should be searched and ordered defendants to search for and produce the information requested and to bear the associated costs

Nature of Case: Breach of contract/warranty

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

U & I Corp. v. Advanced Med. Design, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 667 (M.D. Fla. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff abused discovery process by, among other things, failing to produce email attachments and belatedly advising defendant and court that certain emails were unrecoverable, court imposed monetary sanctions against plaintiff and granted request for limited inspection of computer hard drives used by certain of plaintiff’s employees to be conducted by independent forensic examiner

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, account stated, open account, and unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives of plaintiff’s employees

Margel v. E.G.L. Gem Lab Ltd., 2008 WL 2224288 (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where information maintained in electronic database was necessarily in a form that was not identical to report prepared on basis of that data and produced in discovery, and defendant did not claim that database was “not reasonably accessible,” court ordered defendant to produce or make otherwise available that part of electronic database that evidenced the issuance of certificates during relevant time frame

Nature of Case: Action among gem grading laboratories concerning the right to use certain trademarks in the U.S. and the right to issue grading certificates bearing those marks

Electronic Data Involved: Database containing information used to prepare report produced by defendant in discovery

Ex Parte Vulcan Materials Co., 2008 WL 1838309 (Ala. Apr. 25, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Adopting the same approach as that in Ex parte Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 2007 WL 3121813 (Ala. Oct. 26, 2007), Alabama Supreme Court directed trial court to reconsider Vulcan?s motion for a protective order as to emails sought in light of FRCP 26(b)(2)(B) and Wiginton v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 229 F.R.D. 568 (N.D. Ill. 2004) and in light of Vulcan?s arguments that the requested emails likely constitute work product and would not likely lead to relevant information

Nature of Case: Company petitioned for writ of mandamus seeking review of trial court?s order on post-trial discovery related to motion for remittitur of punitive damages awarded in underlying action for breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual relations, and civil conspiracy

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. S.A.M., Inc., 2008 WL 2522087 (E.D. La. June 20, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where owner of defendant SAM admitted that boxes of SAM’s files and SAM’s server were stored in his home, but he had not affirmatively searched the boxes or server on his own for responsive information, and indicated, rather, that his wife and son looked through the documents when they could, court found discovery responses insufficient and ordered SAM to provide supplemental responses within 15 days; court further ordered SAM to hire a qualified third-party forensic computer specialist to conduct a search of SAM’s computer server since it was unclear whether owner?s son had the technological know-how to conduct a comprehensive search and owner had treated discovery requests ?lackadaisically?

Nature of Case: Breach of Dealer and Security Agreements

Electronic Data Involved: Paper and electronic documents, computer server

U.S. v. Two Bank Accounts, 2008 WL 2696927 (D.S.D. July 2, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where party initially told government he did not have certain computers used in various businesses discussed in complaint, then revealed that he possessed the computers but objected to providing them to government, and then admitted having removed hard drives and hiring third party to create a mirror images, court ruled that government was not bound to accept mirror image made by third party and ordered party to produce computers to government for inspection; court further ordered government to promptly create mirror image of hard drives and return computers promptly to party

Nature of Case: Forfeiture action

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives of certain computers used in the transactions alleged in the complaint

Hightower v. Heritage Acad. of Tulsa, Inc., 2008 WL 2937227 (N.D. Okla. July 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Observing that defendant had not argued that requested emails were not reasonably accessible and had not otherwise demonstrated that production of emails by four identified individuals on single topic over four-year period was unduly burdensome, court rejected defendant?s overbreadth and burdensome objections and ordered defendant to produce responsive documents

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination, wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails sent or received by four members of defendant’s Board of Trustees pertaining to plaintiff and/or her employment

Spieker v. Quest Cherokee, LLC, 2008 WL 4758064 (D. Kan. Oct. 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Granting leave to refile, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of emails for failure to show their relevance to class certification but rejected defendants? argument that $375,000 cost of production was unduly burdensome in light of amount in controversy where defendant argued claims of named plaintiffs were worth $100,000 or less but plaintiff argued claims of the class exceeded $5 million; court also stated that where defendant was in better position to identify search terms it should do so to reduce volume, that the cost of production versus the amount in controversy did not render email data ?not reasonably accessible,? and that parties should address Rule 502 in any future discussions regarding cost, among other things

Nature of Case: Class action for failure to pay royalties arising from oil and gas leases

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Thielen v. Buongiorno USA, Inc., 2007 WL 465680 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 8, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court granted defendant’s motion to compel forensic inspection of plaintiff’s computer and defendant’s sole expense, but limited the scope of the inspection to determining whether, during the relevant time period, plaintiff accessed defendant’s website or a website which advertised defendant’s services, what interaction plaintiff had with such websites and what, if any, information concerning those internet transactions was subsequently deleted

Nature of Case: Cellular phone user alleged that defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 by sending text messages to plaintiff’s cell phone without his permission

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s computer hard drive

Tag:FRCP 26(b)(2)(b) “Not Reasonably Accessible”