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
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
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
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
Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced ESI as documents compiled onto just a few PDF files that lacked metadata or searchable text by printing the ESI and then scanning it for production and resisted reproduction on the grounds of undue burden based on the estimated $10,000 cost of doing so, the court found that the ESI was not produced as ordinarily kept or in a reasonably usable format and further declined to find the information was not reasonably accessible or, if it was, that good cause had been shown to compel reproduction
Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duties, tortious interference with business relationships, fraud, breach of contract, conversion, and replevin
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court declined to compel defendants to conduct additional searching where defendants established the significant efforts already undertaken to locate and produce responsive materials and where plaintiff made ?no showing whatsoever . . . that those emails not produced will make the existence of some crucial facts more likely than not?, the court concluded that ?the search relator demands cannot possibly be justified when one balances its cost against its utility.?; court went on to establish that the inability to find certain information, despite a duty to preserve, did not negate the ability of a party to rely on Rule 26(b)(2)(C) to argue against additional searching
Nature of Case: Fraud
Electronic Data Involved: Additional searching for ESI
Key Insight: Based upon affidavits of defendant?s General Counsel and Litigation Technology Project Manager identifying the burden of responding to plaintiff?s requests for production, including potentially searching 12,786 boxes of hardcopy and 12 terabytes of data, court denied motion to compel but ordered defendant to provide a supplemental response to plaintiff?s request after conducting less burdensome searches and encouraged cooperation to agree upon what those searches would entail; court also denied motion to compel additional searching for particular issues where defendant estimated the cost of search per gigabyte at between $100 and $300 with a total resulting cost of between $1.2 million and $3.6 million
Nature of Case: Dispute regarding proper payment pursuant to contract
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where defendant, ?a small company with 13 employees? who presented evidence that it was not profitable, objected to discovery pursuant to 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) based on an estimated cost of $2,630 to comply with plaintiff?s request (which included, in part, the cost of necessary software to complete the review), the court declined to shift the cost of production but stated that defendant could choose to produce un-reviewed ESI to plaintiff, thus shifting the cost of software necessary for review, but if defendant wished to review the data first, it would bear the costs of doing so
Nature of Case: Sexual harassment
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
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
Key Insight: Following discussion of the breadth of original requests and subsequent narrowing of scope, court addressed duty of defendant to produce evidence from third-party who provided defendant with mortgage-related documents and from independent agents and ordered production from those parties where evidence indicated that at least some agents had contractually agreed to produce documents thus evidencing defendant?s control and where provider of mortgage-documents did not object to disclosure
Nature of Case: Class action
Electronic Data Involved: ESI from third parties
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.