FRCP 26(b)(2)(b) “Not Reasonably Accessible” – Page 4

Castillon v. Corrections Corp. of Am., No. 1:12-cv-005590EJL, 2014 WL 517505 (D. Idaho Feb. 7, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant produced data from timekeeping system in searchable .PDF format and provided attestation from the vice president of technology and chief information officer that that .PDF was the ?only, built-in, reasonably accessible data format? and that producing in the requested format would require Defendant to undertake the ?lengthy and daunting? task of writing a script and where Plaintiffs did not specify the format of production in their request, the court declined to compel re-production of the at-issue data, but noted that if Plaintiffs were willing to pay for the expense of writing a script, ?they may approach Defendant with such a request.?

Nature of Case: Prisoners’ civil rights

Electronic Data Involved: Data from timekeeping system

In re Autohop Litig., No. 12-CV-4155 (LTS)(KNF), 2014 WL 5591047 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel, agreeing with plaintiff that particular document request was overly broad, unduly burdensome, and incomprehensively vague, and concluding that enormous burden and expense that would incurred by plaintiff to access and process the requested data outweighed any benefit defendant might gain; court further noted that the request violated agreement reflected in parties’ Joint Electronic Discovery Submission that they would not be required to search for “other forms of ESI whose preservation requires extraordinary affirmative measures that are not utilized in the ordinary course of business”

Nature of Case: Declaratory action with counterclaims for copyright violations, breach of contract and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Internal communications, viewership tracking data

Harrington Enters., Inc. v. Safety-Kleen Sys., Inc., No. 13-00167-CV-W-BP, 2014 WL 12611318 (W.D. Mo. July 11, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel searches of current and proposed custodians using additional search terms where Plaintiff failed to establish the relevance of the terms or the likelihood they would lead to admissible evidence and where Defendant had already provided discovery regarding the alleged issue, thus rendering the discovery cumulative and duplicative; court also denied motion to add custodians where Plaintiff again failed to establish relevance and where Defendant had shown that the ESI for the requested custodians was not reasonably accessible because it would require restoration of disaster backup tapes and ?substantial time, effort, and cost? to search

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (additional search terms, custodians)

Illiana Surgery and Med. Care Ctr. LLC v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., NO. 2:07 cv 3, 2014 WL 1094455 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Following evaluation of the relevant eight part test, court declined to shift the costs of producing emails stored on Defendant?s backup system pursuant to Rule 26(b)(2)(B) (inaccessible data) but placed limitations on the discovery allowed and ordered Defendant to restore eight weeks of backup tapes at its own expense and to search them for the requested emails and invited Plaintiff to renew its motion if, after Defendant?s search was complete, it could show that ?further exploration? was necessary

Nature of Case: Insurance Litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails stored on backup tapes

Green v. Am. Modern Home Ins. Co., No. 1:14-cv-04074, 2014 WL 6668422 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court granted parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Agreed Order Establishing Protocol for Production of Electronically Stored Information, which addressed search terms, production format, and various other e-discovery matters

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Freres v. Xyngular Corp., No. 2:13-cv-400-DAK-PMW, 2014 WL 1320273 (D. Utah Mar. 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel production of Plaintiff?s cell phone for copying and inspection and rejected Plaintiff?s arguments that the information sought was beyond the scope of discovery, that the inspection should not be allowed because the phone contained personal and/or privileged materials (which the court reasoned the Standard Protective Order would adequately address), and that the inspection was unduly burdensome; court acknowledged Plaintiff?s concern that the phone was her ?only point of contact in the case of an emergency? and ordered Defendant to obtain and pay for an alternate cell phone for Plaintiff?s use while hers was away

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Cellular Phone

Knickerbocker v. Corinthian Colleges, No C12-1142JLR, 2014 WL 1356205 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 7, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court found that Defendant and its counsels? ?lackluster search for documents, failure to implement a litigation hold, deletion of evidence, refusal to cooperation with Plaintiffs in the discovery process (particularly as evidenced by its withholding of information regarding both the backup tapes and its interpretation of the parties? Stipulated Order), reliance on a recklessly false declaration, shifting litigation positions, and inaccurate representations to the court constitute bad faith or conduct tantamount to bad faith? and ordered payment of Plaintiffs? attorneys fees ?incurred due to Corinthian?s bad faith discovery practices? and also ordered fines against Defendant ($25,000) and its counsel ($10,000)

Nature of Case: Employment Litigation (discrimination, hostile work environment)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, including email, ESI on backup tapes

EEOC v. SVT, LLC, No. 2:13-CV-245-RLM-PRC, 2014 WL 2177796 (N.D. Ind. May 22, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant utilized third party?s hiring program to allow applicants to apply online, etc. and had limited access to the system?s data (i.e., limitations on the format and content of reports from the system), the court found that the data that could be regularly accessed by the defendant per its contract with the third party was accessible and subject to production and that data housed by the third party and not readily available to the defendant was ?not reasonably accessible . . . because of both undue burden and cost? and ordered that if the EEOC wanted the inaccessible data, it would have to pay for it

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (Kronos)

Zeller v. S. Cent. Emergency Med. Servs., No. 1:13-CV-2584, 2014 WL 2094340 (M.D. Pa. May 20, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court ruled that plaintiff was entitled to a “first review” of results of independent forensic examination of plaintiff’s email account, and that plaintiff and defendants would share equally in cost of restoring and searching plaintiff’s emails, up to a maximum contribution by plaintiff of $1,500

Nature of Case: Family and Medical Leave Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s emails

Johnson v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. C 14-5064, 2014 WL 7377198 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Addressing Defendant?s claims that the emails of thirty-four employees previously identified by Defendant as potentially having responsive information were not reasonably accessible, the court indicated that Defendant?s declaration in support of that claim was ?of limited value? where it made only broad claims regarding the potential time it could take to search each computer but failed to account for the actual time taken to search the computers of the four primary adjusters for a prior production but acknowledged it was ?extremely difficult? to conclude that all thirty-four employees had ?significant, relevant discoverable emails or documents? and thus ordered the search and production of one custodian revealed in deposition to have been involved in the at-issue denial of coverage and that Plaintiff could choose 10 additional employees? computers to be searched based on Defendant?s court-ordered description of each employees? job and the type of documents they were likely to maintain

Nature of Case: Insurance litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

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