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

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

Mailhoit v. Home Depot USA, No. CV 11-03892 DOC (SSx), 2012 WL 12884128 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing Defendant?s Motion for an order precluding discovery of disaster recovery backup tapes, court considered the factors laid out in Rule 26(b)(2)(B)?s Committee Note (2006) and relevant case law and concluded that Defendant met its burden to establish inaccessibility where restoration and production would be ?extraordinarily expensive, both in restoration costs and attorney time? and that Plaintiff failed to establish good cause to compel production, citing as most important the failure to substantiate the claim that the emails would be important or useful to her case; court rejected argument that sampling must be conducted before a cost-benefit analysis could be undertaken by the court

Electronic Data Involved: Disaster Recovery Backup Tapes

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

IWOI, LLC v. Monaco Coach Corp., No. 07-3453, 2011 WL 2038714 (N.D. Ill. May 24, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to conduct a sufficient search for responsive information and where an important email was located only upon a forensic search of defendant?s computer system after plaintiff offered to bear the costs, court ordered that half of the costs of the search be shifted to defendant

Nature of Case: Breach of warranty and violations of certain state law proscriptions against consumer fraud in connection with sale of motorcoach

Electronic Data Involved: Email

B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Fastenal Co., No. 4:10CV00317 BRW/JTR, 2011 WL 2115546 (E.D. Ark. May 25, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Addressing discovery issues ?looming on the horizon? court indicated that there appeared to be no basis to require defendant to forensically image at-issue hard drives and, addressing whether defendant would be required to restore and review backup tapes which it claimed could cost $84,854,704. 90 (a number the court called ?absurdly high? on its face), found that it would be difficult for plaintiff to meet the seven factor test for good cause and that defendant had sufficiently objected to plaintiff?s request such that arguments that the backup tapes were not reasonably accessible had not been waived

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic image of hard drives, backup tapes

Brokaw v. Davol, Inc., Nos. PC 07-5058, PC 07-4048, PC 07-1706, 2011 WL 579039 (R.I. Super. Ct. Feb. 15, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court found backup tapes not reasonably accessible in light of the cost of restoration, review and production but granted plaintiff?s motion to compel where plaintiff?s showed ?good cause for some discovery? and held the motion in abeyance until further argument on cost-shifting

Nature of Case: Products liability

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

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