FRCP 26(b)(2)(C) Limitations – Page 11 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

U.S. Bank Nat?l Assoc. v. PHL Variable Ins. Co., No. 12 Civ. 6811(CM)(JCF), 2012 WL 5395249 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Considering burdensome nature of subpoenas to non-parties, court found that cost shifting was appropriate and ordered plaintiff to bear the search, collection and production costs associated with the non-parties? compliance with the subpoenas; non-parties? were ordered to bear their own costs associated with privilege review, but, in order to give them ?the option of conducting a more economical analysis while minimizing the risk of waiver,? the court entered a non-waiver order pursuant to Rule 502(d) that would preclude the disclosure of privileged documents from resulting in waiver in any proceeding

Nature of Case: Alleged breach of insurance policies and violations of various related laws

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Adair v. EQT Prod. Co., No. 1:10cv00037, 2012 WL 1965880 (W.D. Va. May 31, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Considering the burden of production and the court?s ability to relieve it, the court held that consideration of the cost of review alone, related to otherwise accessible data, can be considered in deciding whether discovery imposes an undue burden or cost and may form the basis for a court?s decision to shift costs; court noted in this case, though, that a protective order and clawback agreement combined with a proposal to preclude production of any documents to or from in-house or outside counsel precluded defendant’s need to conduct a expensive privilege review and ordered production in accordance with the court?s order; affirmed with minor modifications 2012 WL 2526982

Electronic Data Involved: Esi

United States v. Warner, No. C 11-04181 LB, 2012 WL 6087193 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought the government?s production of all communications between himself and the government, all documents concerning its debt collection policies, and information related to the government?s debt collection efforts related to his debt, the court found that the government?s burden argument was unpersuasive where it lacked specific information to support the claim and where, pursuant to the factors in Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii), the burden did not outweigh the benefit of the requested discovery

Nature of Case: Student loan debt collection

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Fisher v. Fisher, No. WDQ-11-11038, 2012 WL 2050785 (D. Md. June 5, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: After carefully laying out the law surrounding document requests/productions, court evaluated plaintiff?s motion to compel and, invoking principles of proportionality, granted in part and denied in part the motion

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Norfolk S. Railway Co. v. Hartry, 316 Ga. App. 532 (Ga. Ct. App. June 29, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where relevant data could only be viewed using particular software, a license for which would cost $500, the trial court ordered Norfolk Southern to provide the data to Plaintiff ?in some useable form ? either by obtaining permission from [the owner of the software] to produce the data ?, by providing [Plaintiffs] with a computer with the necessary software? or by any other method the parties agreed to. On appeal, the court found no abuse of discretion, ?especially given the crucial nature of the evidence, the relatively minor cost of the license when compared to the amount at stake in the lawsuit, and the fact that it was Norfolk Sothern?s decision to equip its locomotives? with a recording device from which it could provide data to a third party only upon payment of a licensing fee.

Nature of Case: Personal injury arising from collision between train and tractor trailer

Electronic Data Involved: Event data recorder

Crop Data Mgmt. Sys., Inc. v. Software Solutions Integrated LLC, No. 2:11-cv-01437 LKK KJN, 2012 WL 2571201 (E.D. Cal. July 2, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel ?complete forensic imaging and an open ended computer inspection of all of defendants ?electronically stored information?? where the court found the request was overly broad in scope and unduly burdensome and costly in light of the time and cost of the necessary privilege reviews by defendants and other expenses associated with the business interruption of such inspections, where ?plaintiff ha[d] not reasonably attempted to obtain the information it [sought] short of the proposed, burdensome computer investigation,? and where it was ?highly improbable? that the parties could complete the inspection by the close of discovery

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic inspection of computers and servers

Custom Hardware Eng?g & Consulting, Inc. v. Dowell, No. 4:10CV00653 ERW, 2011 WL 10496 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Relying heavily on Ameriwood Industries v. Liberman, No. 4:06CV524-DJS, 2006 WL 3825291 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 27, 2006), court ordered the discovery of ESI on defendant?s computers in accordance with three-step procedure: 1) imaging of hard drive by forensic expert, 2) recovery of ESI from that image, 3) defense counsel?s review and production of responsive non-privilege information; upon parties? disagreement regarding search terms to be utilized in step three, court rejected defendant?s arguments that plaintiff?s proposed terms would result in an ?unreasonable number of irrelevant results? and the production of privilege information and also rejected defendant?s proposed search terms as too narrow, where defendant proposed that only exact matches, including in capitalization and phrasing, be considered

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, trade secret misappropria-tion, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and other related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of hard drive

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