Key Insight: Court granted defendant?s motion to compel production of ?computer images and dumpster files? for 29 custodians upon finding that the information sought was relevant and that production would not be unduly burdensome
Nature of Case: Patent Infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Computer images and “dumpster files”
Key Insight: Addressing the sufficiency of defendant?s search for responsive ESI, among other discovery disputes, court found that defendant failed to conduct a reasonable search and ordered additional searching as specified by the court and that defendant produce mirror images of the computers and external drives of a former supervisor for defendant that was particularly relevant to the litigation (the court called the failure to search his computers ?inexcusable and inexplicable?); court granted protective order precluding defendant?s expert from requirement to produce hardware (computers, etc.) already subject to production by defendant pursuant to court?s order where such duplication was unnecessary and would unnecessarily increase costs
Nature of Case: civil rights and employment law
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court granted motion to allow forensic imaging of plaintiff?s computers for purposes of discovery where plaintiff?s production of ESI was very small, where plaintiff?s CIO admitted he had taken no efforts to retrieve any ESI, and where it was established that ESI may be present on plaintiff?s computers?possibly including electronic copies of hard copy documents which may have been shredded; court?s order called for court-appointed forensic expert to conduct examination and established other protocols to be followed
Nature of Case: Breach of insurance contract
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: District Court denied defendant?s objections to Magistrate Judge?s ruling denying request for forensic examination of plaintiffs? computers where plaintiffs each verified that they had conducted a search of all email accounts and produced all responsive emails and where both plaintiffs were told by their ISP that no further emails could be retrieved; court reasoned that there was no reason to discredit plaintiffs? representations and found that forensic examinations would be overly broad, intrusive, expensive, and would likely reveal irrelevant material
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Forensic examination of computers and email accounts
Key Insight: Where plaintiffs destroyed paper copies of records that were also maintained in electronic format (by a third party) despite anticipation of litigation, court ordered discovery reopened for the purpose of allowing plaintiff to take the necessary action to acquire the electronic records and to provide them to defendant at their own cost and indicated that if the records were no longer in the third party?s possession, the court would ?reconsider its ruling? where the absence of those records would result in a greater degree of prejudice to the defendant
Nature of Case: Breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copies of hard copy records that had been destroyed
Key Insight: Where plaintiffs discovered, late in the discovery time period, that defendant?s database production was incomplete but defendant claimed plaintiffs were merely using the wrong query?a query that defendant had not yet produced?the court ordered that defendant produce the relevant query and left open plaintiffs? option to re-file its motion to compel production of additional data if, upon conducting its analysis with the proper query, it nonetheless determined (and could successfully show) that relevant data was missing
Nature of Case: Civil rights claims related to overdetention and strip searching of inmates
Electronic Data Involved: Database content, relevant database query
Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of additional documents in CERCLA action where government had already produced a ?staggering? amount of discovery and indicated that additional discovery obligations would be burdensome and where the information sought would only be of ?limited relevance? to the issues of the case
Nature of Case: CERCLA
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
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
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
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
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.