FRCP 26(b)(2)(C) Limitations – Page 12 – Electronic Discovery Law

Wynmoor Cmty. Council, Inc. v. QBE Ins. Co., —F.R.D.—, 2012 WL 716480 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 5, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

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

Moore v. Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr., No. 11-CV-3552 (KAM)(JO), 11-CV-3624 (KAM)(JO), 2012 WL 1078000 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

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

Bruno v. Bozzuto?s, Inc., 850 F. Supp. 2d 462 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

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

Barnes v. District of Columbia, —F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 WL 4101943 (D.D.C. Sept. 19, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

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

United States v. NCR Corp., No. 10-C-910, 2012 WL 4955304 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 17, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

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

Murphy v. Target Corp., No. 09cv1436-BEN (WMc), 2011 WL 2728217 (S.D. Cal. July 12, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where target indicated the requested discovery would require the expenditure of approximately 146 hours of employees? time and cost $4,360 and also argued that the requested discovery would invade employees? privacy and was minimally relevant, court found that the burden to Target did not outweigh the likely benefit, rejected defendant?s arguments regarding privacy and relevance, and granted plaintiff?s motion to compel

Nature of Case: Employment Litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Madere v. Compass Bank, No. A-10-CV-812 LY, 2011 WL 5155643 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of email requiring restoration of backup tapes where defendant?s expert averred that it would cost over $270,000 and require hundreds of hours to accomplish, where plaintiff?s expert could not ?ascertain an estimate for the actual cost,? and where ?even if the actual cost of restoring the backup tapes was only a fraction? of the estimated amount, it ?would still outweigh the amount [Plaintiff] seeks to recover?

Nature of Case: Violation of FMLA

Electronic Data Involved: Emails on backup tapes

Greater Lakes Ambulatory Surgical Ctr., PLLC v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., No. 11-11003, 2011 WL 5245141 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 3, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendant indicated that the requested records were not readily searchable because the information sought was not tracked, that compliance with plaintiffs? request would require manual review of ?hundreds of thousands of claims,? that the claim files were not stored as searchable images, and that the cost of reviewing the claim files could eclipse $100,000, the court concluded that defendant had demonstrated undue burden and denied plaintiffs? motion to compel; court also indicated that plaintiffs could have pursued alternative avenues of discovery where defendant indicated that a third party maintained the information requested but failed to do so and that defendant should not be ?required to engage in labor and resource intensive discovery . . . merely because Plaintiff?s failed to subpoena a third-party . . . .?

Nature of Case: Suit arising from Defendant’s refusal to pay certain charges for services provided to insured

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

United States v. AT&T, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-01560, 2011 WL 5347178 (D.D.C. Nov. 6, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied non-party?s motion to quash defendant?s subpoena where defendant adequately narrowed its request and where the non-party failed to establish that the burden of responding was undue, including by failing to provide particulars related to the expected burden of responding; court?s analysis closely followed standard set forth in Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii)

Nature of Case: DOJ investigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Google Litig., No. C 08-03172 RMW (PSG), 2011 WL 6113000 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where third party objected to plaintiff?s subpoena as overly broad and burdensome but nevertheless undertook a limited search which resulted in the identification of zero documents, but where plaintiff argued the search was halfhearted and that additional searching was required, the court took notice of objective of the recently adopted Model Order on E-Discovery in Patent Cases and indicated its applicability to third parties and thereafter ordered plaintiff to provide the non-party with five search terms to be utilized in additional searching and that plaintiff would bear the costs of any terms beyond the limits agreed to by the parties or granted by the court

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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