FRCP 26(b)(2)(b) “Not Reasonably Accessible” – Page 7

Point 4 Data Corp. v. Tri-State Surgical Supply & Equip., Ltd., No. 11-CV-726 (CBA), 2012 WL 3705001 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where, seeking data related to the number of times and when defendant logged onto plaintiff?s accounting system, defendant paid for an expert to restore damaged media but found no responsive data thereon and where plaintiff thereafter sought access to the damaged media to conduct its own search, the court indicated it would not allow a fishing expedition, but that if plaintiff wanted to bear the costs of duplicating defendant?s restoration and search efforts, it could retain a neutral third-party expert to do so, limited to a search of specifically identified folders; as to an inoperable drive that the parties previously agreed would be considered inaccessible, court would allow plaintiff to pay for neutral third party?s examination to perform a limited review; court declined to compel affidavit from defendant indicating specific steps to locate and preserve relevant data

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive and copies of same

General Elec. Co. v. Wilkins, No. 1:10-cv-00674, 2012 WL 570048 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing whether GE would be required to restore, search, and produce responsive contents of hundreds of backup tapes, court found that the data on the backup tapes was not reasonably accessible because of the significant expense of restoring and searching the tapes and further found that defendant did not show good cause to compel restoration and production, particularly where defendant failed to provide any evidence of the presence of unique, responsive documents on the tapes

Nature of Case: patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: backup tapes

United States v. Comty. Health Ctr. Of Buffalo, No. 05-CV-237A(F), 2012 WL 3136485 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiff was able to recover potentially relevant ESI on defendants? backup tapes which had been produced to plaintiff without restriction following defendants erroneous determination that no responsive documents were contained thereon (as the result of using insufficient software to read the data) and where plaintiff therefore sought unrestricted access to the information, except for privileged documents, and for defendants to pay plaintiff?s cost to review the information, the court determined that defendants? production of the tapes waived their objections to Plaintiff?s efforts to locate responsive information but that the failure to identify potentially responsive documents was not in bad faith and that the information on the tapes was not reasonably accessible and denied Plaintiffs? motion for reimbursement for the cost of reviewing the tapes

Nature of Case: False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on “back-up magnetic tapes”

FTC v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., —F. Supp. 2d—, 2012 WL 4888473 (D.D.C. Oct. 16, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where FTC sought to compel defendant to search for and produce responsive ESI on backup tapes, the court resolved the question of what standard must be applied to properly analyze the producing party?s claims of burden (Rule 26(b)(2)(B) ?good cause? to overcome the burden shown by the responding party v. the standard established in FTC v. Texaco Inc., 555 F.2d 862 (DC Cir 1977) ?a showing that compliance with the subpoena ?threatens to unduly disrupt or serious hinder normal operations of a business??) and determined that in light of the narrowed request, the defendant had not established a sufficient burden and thus ordered defendant to conduct a search of the at-issue backup tapes and to produce any non-privileged materials

Nature of Case: Administrative Subpoena

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., No. 10 Civ. 6950(LBS)(JCF), 2012 Wl 3964742 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court addressed in depth a myriad of important discovery issues (e.g. ?phasing, sampling, and proportionality?); as to the question of reasonable accessibility, court clarified that a showing of undue burden alone is insufficient to establish inaccessibility and that the alleged burden must be ?associated with some technological feature which inhibits accessibility? and, noting that defendant?s databases were not inaccessible because of such a feature, found that rule 26(b)(2)(B) presented ?no barrier? to discovery of the at-issue databases; turning to the question of proportionality pursuant to Rule 26(b)(2)(C), court focused on section (iii) and, after discussing options to lessen Defendant?s burden, including sampling or a ?document dump,? found that most ESI was subject to production for reasons including the importance of the information to the case, the high financial stakes and Defendant?s ?ample resources,? the importance of the issues being litigated, and Defendant?s exaggeration of the burden and the inadequacy of proposed alternatives

Nature of Case: Putative class action asserting gender discrimination by employer

Electronic Data Involved: Database content

McNulty v. Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., 2011 116892 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 13, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendant preserved 4 terabytes of electronically stored information and 744 boxes of paper documents to be reviewed for production, court cited Rule 26(b)(2)(B) for the proposition that burdensome discovery should be limited but found that plaintiff had good cause for requesting relevant information and ordered the parties to meet and confer to develop search terms or objective search criteria for identifying responsive ESI as well as to develop a search plan for the hard copy

Nature of Case: RICO

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard copy

Star Direct Telecom, Inc. v. Global Crossing Bandwidth, Inc., 272 F.R.D. 350 (W.D.N.Y. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where, in response to the at-issue request for production, defendant failed to identify its archives as a source of information that it would not search or to object to plaintiff?s request and, in fact, represented that it would produce responsive information, court found the information sought was relevant, that plaintiff?s motion was timely, and ordered defendant to search its archives upon rejecting defendant?s untimely assertions of undue burden and cost

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, claims under the Communications Act, and various tort claims

Electronic Data Involved: Archived emails

Hudson v. AIH Receivable Mgmt. Servs. LLC, No 10-2287-JAR-KGG, 2011 WL 1402224 (D. Kan. Apr. 13, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendant, ?a small company with 13 employees? who presented evidence that it was not profitable, objected to discovery pursuant to 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) based on an estimated cost of $2,630 to comply with plaintiff?s request (which included, in part, the cost of necessary software to complete the review), the court declined to shift the cost of production but stated that defendant could choose to produce un-reviewed ESI to plaintiff, thus shifting the cost of software necessary for review, but if defendant wished to review the data first, it would bear the costs of doing so

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Thermal Design, Inc. v. Guardian Building Prods., Inc., No. 08-C-828, 2011 WL 1527025 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 20, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel searching of all archived email and shared network drives where significant ESI had already been produced; where defendant established that the additional searching would take several months and result in an additional cost of $1.9 million dollars, plus an additional $600,000 to review; and where plaintiffs offered little evidence to justify the burden and argued instead that because defendant was a ?series of large companies with considerable resources,? the burden was not too great; court specifically reasoned ?Courts should not countenance fishing expeditions simply because the party resisting discovery can afford to comply.?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Clean Harbors Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. ESIS, Inc., No. 09 C 3789, 2011 WL 1897213 (N.D. Ill. May 17, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought reimbursement of the costs of producing ESI from backup tapes but did not seek judicial intervention to narrow the requests prior to production, court considered eight factors and ruled that plaintiff and defendants should split the costs; the eight factors considered were: 1) the likelihood of discovering critical information; 2) the availability of such information from other sources; 3) the amount in controversy as compared to the total cost of production; 4) the parties’ resources as compared to the total cost of production; 5) the relative ability of each party to control costs and its incentive to do so; 6) the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation; 7) the importance of the requested discovery in resolving the issues at stake in the litigation; and 8) the relative benefits to the parties of obtaining the information.

Nature of Case: Legal malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on backup tapes

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