FRCP 26(b)(2)(C) Limitations – Page 13 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re Nat?l Assoc. of Music Merchs., Musical Instruments & Equip. Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2121, 2011 WL 6372826 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel defendant to re-run searches using commonly used acronyms where defendant had already run search terms that had been agreed upon by the parties and plaintiff had ample opportunity to ask for the abbreviations to be used and where the court determined that he burden of re-searching outweighed the benefit; where plaintiff was willing to bear the cost of ?running the searches and conducting the review in their request,? however, court would permit further search of specified custodians for one specifically identified acronym

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Stambler v. Amazon.com, No. 2:09-CV-310 (DF), 2011 WL 10538668 (E.D. Tex. May 23, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where parties agreed on search terms to identify responsive materials and defendants (the producing parties) later argued that the terms had produced overly-burdensome results, court held that defendants had the burden of ?justifying non-production or reduced production? because they had agreed to the terms and that they had failed to ?justify protection under Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii)? but, acknowledging the expected costs of review and production, indicated that defendants could choose to produce documents without reviewing the results in light of the ability to identify privilege using key words and the parties? claw back agreement in their protective order; recognizing the potential burden to plaintiffs if defendants chose to produce documents without review, the court indicated the parties could confer to revise search terms if they so chose

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

United States v. Halliburton, Co., 272 F.R.D. 235 (D.D.C. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

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

Hock Foods, Inc. v. William Blair & Co., LLC, No. 09-2588-KHV, 2011 WL 884446 (D. Kan. Mar. 11, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

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

Hudson v. AIH Receivable Mgmt. Servs. LLC, No 10-2287-JAR-KGG, 2011 WL 1402224 (D. Kan. Apr. 13, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

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

Thermal Design, Inc. v. Guardian Building Prods., Inc., No. 08-C-828, 2011 WL 1527025 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 20, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

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

Boucher v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., No. C10-199RAJ, 2011 WL 5299497 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 4, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

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

Wood v. Capital One Servs., LLC, No. 5:09-CV-1445, 2011 WL 2154279 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel additional discovery, including ?sweeping searches of ESI using suggested search terms? where, following significant analysis of the rule of proportionality (26(b)(2)(C)), the court determined that the ?minimally relevant information to be developed through the discovery? was ?far outweighed by the burden? associated with it, but left open plaintiff?s option to bear the cost of the discovery himself

Nature of Case: Violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Doyle v. Gonzales, 2011 WL 611825 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 10, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where a small town with ?limited financial and technological resources? sought a protective order to allow phased discovery of ESI in light of the alleged burden and expense of the requested discovery, the court granted in part the defendant?s motion and crafted a protective order which established the search terms to be employed and allowed plaintiff the opportunity to provide suggestions and which provided that if the search returned an unreasonable amount of documents that plaintiff?s counsel should assist in ?restructuring the search? to reduce that number

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Couch v. Wan, No. 1:08cv1621 LJO DLB, 2011 WL 2551546 (E.D. Cal. June 24, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: After defendant reported that the estimated cost of searching its electronically stored information using the search terms provided by plaintiff would be ?at least $54,000? because of the need to hire an outside contractor to assist, the court found that the discovery requests imposed a burden on the defendant that warranted cost shifting and ordered the parties to met and confer to determine an appropriate cost sharing agreement; Reconsideration denied in Couch v. Wan, No. CV F 08-1621 LJO DLB, 2011 WL 291118 (E.D. Cal. July 20, 2011)

Nature of Case: Violations of their free speech rights and violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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