FRCP 26(b)(2)(C) Limitations – Page 14 – Electronic Discovery Law

Graff v. Haverhill N. Coke Co., No. 1:09-cv-670, 2011 WL 1630045 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 24, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where, by comparing the time taken to respond to other requests, defendant established that responding to the requests at issue would be unduly burdensome (requiring an estimated 1,000 to 1,600 hours) and where plaintiff failed to provide ?any particular showing ? of the benefit to be obtained from such information?, the court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Tomlinson v. El Paso Corp., No. 04-cv-02686-WDM-MEH, 2011 WL 2297661 (D. Colo. June 9, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied request for taxation of costs related to conversion of documents into electronic format for discovery purposes where defendant failed to establish that the conversion costs were ?necessarily incurred in the case preparation?; court denied motion for taxation of costs related to creation of secure database in furtherance of responding to a legitimate discovery request where the court was not authorized to award such costs pursuant to the relevant statute and where it was unaware of authority allowing adjustments to the division of costs based on undue burden, an argument that was available ?during the discovery process?

Electronic Data Involved: Conversion of ESI

Concerned Citizens for Crystal City v. City of Crystal City, 334 S.W.3d 519 (Mo. App. Ct. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where trial court ordered a single plaintiff to produce all information in his possession or control that had been posted to a relevant web forum and where that plaintiff complied in part but withheld information that could have uniquely identified users and unposted private messages, the trial court abused its discretion in striking all plaintiffs? pleadings and dismissing their claims as a sanction for discovery violations where the request for discovery was overly broad in the first place and where the sanction imposed for failing to respond to such an overly broad request was ?unjust?

Nature of Case: Claims arising from city’s approval of development of property

Electronic Data Involved: ESI posted to website and electronic forum

Robotic Parking Sys., Inc. v. City of Hoboken, 2010 WL 324524 (D.N.J. Jan. 19, 2010) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted intervenor?s motion for a protective order where plaintiff (intervenor?s direct competitor) sought access to defendant?s garage operating computers possibly containing intervenor?s trade secrets but denied request to prevent access entirely where such access was necessary for plaintiff?s case, where there was no showing of irrelevance or burden, and where intervenor?s concerns were ?too speculative to warrant non-disclosure?; court ordered parties to split cost of software necessary for defendant to view forensic images produced by plaintiff where plaintiff sought to use the images at trial, where defendant had no way to view the court ordered production otherwise, and where the parties failed to properly discuss and agree upon discovery issues, including the cost of production, pursuant to local rule

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, source code

In re Urethane Antitrust Litig., 2010 WL 4226214 (D. Kan. Oct. 21, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs sought a protective order to preclude discovery of a certain category of information, court denied their motion for a myriad of reasons, including rejecting arguments of undue burden and expense where the arguments were ?largely conclusory and unsupported? and where plaintiffs evidence actually established that the discovery could be reasonably undertaken as the result of work done while responding to other requests and reasoned that while responding would ?take time?, it would not be an ?inordinate? amount

Nature of Case: Price fixing, market-allocation conspiracies

Electronic Data Involved: ESI related to criminal investigation of some plaintiffs

Mack v. HG Gregg, Inc., 2010 WL 342545 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 29, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff moved to compel re-production of electronic spreadsheet in its ?original format? i.e. without a lock that prevented the manipulation of data, the court rejected defendants? arguments that plaintiffs request be denied because 1) the original format was protected work product, 2) the parties never agreed to a format of production, and 3) re-production would be unduly burdensome and granted plaintiffs? motion to compel

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheet

Smith v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2010 WL 4641157 (D. Idaho Nov. 5, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel ?event description? information contained in defendant?s database to correspond with a previously produced spreadsheet regarding past claims and rejected defendant?s objections of irrelevance and undue burden, particularly in light of testimony which indicated the relative ease of collection and production based on the efforts previously undertaken in creating the related spreadsheet

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI contained in database

Cartel Asset Mgmt. v. Ocwen Fin. Corp., 2010 WL 502721 (D. Colo. Feb. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants bore the burden of persuasion when asserting that ESI was inaccessible because of undue burden or cost and where defendants? supported their claim of inaccessibility with only one declaration which lacked specific information regarding defendants? storage practices, the number of back-up or archival systems that would need to be searched, or defendants? capability to retrieve information from those back-up or archival systems, the court denied defendants? Motion for a Protective Order

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, unfair competition, unjust enrichment and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Daugherty v. Murphy, 2010 WL 4877720 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 23, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants established that the requested data extracts proposed by plaintiffs would take 5 months and ?about $100,000? the court granted defendants? motion for a protective order and ordered defendants to execute the data extractions which they had proposed and which they represented would be far less burdensome; court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel defendants? production of ?file layouts? for the purpose of revising their request for data extracts but acknowledged that defendants? failure to previously produce ?file layouts? was a serious issue and its wiliness to address sanctions upon a motion from plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: Data extracts

Sunnen Prods. Co. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of Am., 2010 WL 743663 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 25, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought discovery regarding similar insurance policies, claims and lawsuits of other insureds, court found the information ?discoverable? and rejected defendant?s claims of undue burden based on alleged inability to conduct an electronic search citing a prior court decision (involving defendant and similar claims of burden) for the proposition that plaintiff would not be denied discovery because of defendant?s election ?to have inadequate mens [sic] of accessing data?

Nature of Case: Insurance litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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