FRCP 26(b)(2)(C) Limitations – Page 10 – Electronic Discovery Law

Whiteamire Clinic, P.A., Inc. v. Quill Corp., No. 12 C 5490, 2013 WL 5348377 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendant sought to avoid production of ESI arguing that the retrieval of the requested information from its information systems would be unduly burdensome because of the manner in which the ESI was stored, the court noted that accepting such an explanation would create a ?perverse incentive? encouraging companies to store their data in a way that made it inaccessible except at great burden or cost and granted plaintiff?s motion to compel; court ordered defendant to produce an image of the hard drives of its four relevant information systems to Plaintiff?s expert who would retrieve the relevant information and provide it to defendant for review before production to the plaintiff; Plaintiff would bear the costs (voluntarily).

Nature of Case: Violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (sending of unwanted faxes)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI related to recipients of faxes

Ewald v. Royal Norwegian Embassy, No. 11-CV-2116 SRN/SER, 2013 WL 6094600 (D. Minn. Nov. 20, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: District court affirmed in part magistrate judge?s order (at 2013 WL 5687559) denying plaintiff?s request for forensic examination of laptop computers used by plaintiff during her employment, as defendant produced 56,625 pages of documents from most recently used laptop, and burden and expense of forensic examination of previous laptop outweighed its likely benefit, given that plaintiff did not assert even a belief that relevant information existed on that computer that was not produced from other sources; court reversed in part magistrate judge?s order denying access to text and voice messages, finding that plaintiff demonstrated that ?the scale tips in her favor? in regard to two mobile phones provided by defendant to plaintiff and another witness for work-related purposes, and ordering parties to meet and confer upon protocol to be used in conducting search for responsive text messages and voice messages contained on the two devices

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Work laptops, and text messages and voice messages on certain mobile devices

Brown v. West Corp., No. 8:11CV284, 2013 WL 6263632 (D. Neb. Dec. 4, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions related to automatic deletion of email backups where no email from the time of Plaintiff?s separation from the defendant existed on that system because of the passage of time and where the automatic deletions did not affect any emails saved on individual employees? computers – who had been instructed to preserve relevant information; court also declined to impose sanctions for the destruction of files on former employees? computers where Defendant claimed the computers contained no relevant information that had not already been produced and where the repurposing of the computers was apparently undertaken in good faith; upholding magistrate judge?s prior discovery orders, court noted the magistrate judge?s recognition that although some of the custodians from which plaintiff sought discovery may have relevant information, ?a few pointed questions in a deposition were less burdensome than grasping at the periphery by reviewing thousands or tens of thousands of e-mails in the hope of discovering a limited number of interactions that might, together, indicate something about whether discrimination played a role in the actions at the center of this case?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email, computer files of former employees

Westdale Recap Props., Ltd. v. NP/I & G Wakefield Commons, LLC, No. 5:11-CV-659-D, 2013 WL 5424844 (E.D.N.C. Sep. 26, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where producing party defended tardiness of production by explaining it had been awaiting agreement on protocol for ESI, as contemplated in parties? discovery plan, and proposed search terms from plaintiffs to conduct a supplemental search of ESI pursuant to such protocol, court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs? motion to compel, setting deadlines for plaintiffs to provide different custodians, dates and/or keyword search terms, and for production, resolving that production should be in the form of searchable PDF?s with the option of requesting particular ESI in native format if there is a demonstrable need, and requiring defendant to prepare privilege log meeting requirements of Rule 26(b)(5)(A) and duly signed by counsel for any otherwise responsive documents withheld on grounds of privilege

Nature of Case: Fraud, civil conspiracy, unfair and deceptive trade practices and negligent misrepresentation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

W. Penn. Elec. Employees Pension Fund v. Alter, No. 2:09-cv-04730-CMR, 2013 WL 4803564 (E.D. Pa. June 26, 2013), approved and adopted in substantial part, 2013 WL 4799061 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 6, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: In this Report and Amended Recommended Order, Special Discovery Master agreed with plaintiffs that they should have the opportunity to confirm, though inspection by neutral e-discovery vendor already retained by parties, defense counsel?s representations as to contents of individual defendant?s belatedly-disclosed hard drive, because without the requested examination, there was no way to know if, in fact, hard drive contents were duplicative of data already produced by another party as the individual defendant claimed; Special Master found request was not unreasonable given the centrality of the defendant in events giving rise to the lawsuit, the unsubstantiated nature of defense counsel?s claim that the data was duplicative, that the defendant had provided only limited discovery to plaintiffs, that the defendant, through his counsel, had previously denied possession of any responsive data when the hard drive had been in his home and responsive documents were on his personal computer, much time and money had been expended in the effort to obtain the documents from other sources, and plaintiffs should not be expected to accept without question the claim that the defendant ?simply forgot? he had received company documents prior to his departure; district court subsequently adopted recommendation but modified deadlines and division of costs

Nature of Case: Securities class action

Electronic Data Involved: Material on hard drive belatedly disclosed by individual defendant

Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of Kickapoo Reservation in Kan. v. Nemaha Brown Watershed Joint Dist. No. 7, No. 06-CV-2248-CM-DJW (D. Kan. Sep. 23, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court sustained District’s objection that it did not have duty to produce documents from persons no longer associated with the District who were not parties to the litigation, as plaintiff failed to establish that District had the necessary control over requested documents or that District had legal right to obtain such documents on demand from former District board members, staff or employees; court further denied motion to compel forensic mirror imaging of computers and other electronic devices personally owned by current and former District board members, employees and staff, as District already produced forensic mirror images of two District computers, District lacked possession or control of personally-owned computers, there was no showing that any personally-owned computers of board members, employees and staff were used by those persons for District business, and court had significant concerns about intrusiveness of request and privacy rights of individuals to be affected

Nature of Case: Dispute over water rights

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Adkins v. EQT Prod. Co., No. 1:10cv00041, 2012 WL 5465491 (W.D. Va. May 31, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing Defendant?s Motion for a Protective Order based on undue burden, court was ?persuaded? that no review was necessary to protect privilege because of the parties? Clawback Order and further found that a reasonable approach in light of Defendant?s assertions of burden (including that processing and review costs could exceed 4 million dollars, as represented by Defendant?s litigation support vendor) was to require Defendant to search and filter its ESI itself (rather than relying on the vendor), with all emails to be designated ?confidential? which would then shift the burden to Plaintiff?s counsel to determine if the ESI produced was over or under inclusive; Court specifically held that ?the court may consider the cost of review of ESI for privileged or responsive information in deciding whether discovery imposes an undue burden or cost on a responding party. Furthermore if the court were inclined to limit discovery based on the burden or cost of the review, I hold that the court could shift the costs of that review, either in whole or in part, to the requesting party.?

Nature of Case: Class action based on alleged entitlement to royalty payments

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Ohio Valley Environ. Coalition, Inc. v U.S. Army Corps of Eng?gs, No. 1:11MC35, 2012 WL 112325 (N.D. W. Va. Jan. 12, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where non-party represented that responding to subpoena would be burdensome in light of need to comb through vast amounts of ESI which had not been organized in anticipation of litigation, court determined such representations constituted ?blanket assertions? but failed to meet the high burden of showing, with particularity, the source and extent of the burden claimed and declined to quash the subpoena for that reason

Electronic Data Involved: Research materials from university professor

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

Eisai v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, No. 08-4168 (MLC), 2012 WL 1299379 (D.N.J. Apr. 16, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motions to compel discovery from an additional 175 custodians and an additional 27 custodians (two separate requests) upon its determination that the requests were cumulative or duplicative and that the burden outweighed the potential benefit; of note was the significant expenditures of the defendants on already-produced discovery and the volumes produced as well as the estimated cost of the additional requested discovery, where the estimated burden of producing the additional 175 custodians was 140,00 hours of manpower and roughly $15 million dollars?an amount that exceeded the expected value of plaintiff?s claim

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from 200+ custodians

Tag:FRCP 26(b)(2)(C) Limitations