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

1
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)
2
Stambler v. Amazon.com, No. 2:09-CV-310 (DF), 2011 WL 10538668 (E.D. Tex. May 23, 2011)
3
In re IKB Deutsche Industrie Bank AG, 2010 WL 1526070 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 8, 2010)
4
Estate of Eva Boles v. Nat?l Heritage Realty, Inc., 2010 WL 1759026 (N.D. Miss. Apr. 27, 2010)
5
Eurand, Inc. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 266 F.R.D. 79 (D. Del. 2010)
6
Camesi v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 2010 WL 3718867 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 20, 2010)
7
Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., LLC v. Fujitsu Ltd., 2010 WL 1901776 (D. Utah May 10, 2010)
8
Tamburo v. Dworkin, No. 04 C 3317, 2010 WL 4867346 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2010)
9
Colony Ins. Co. v. Danley, Inc., 2010 WL 3894203 (D. Me. Oct. 4, 2010)
10
Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co, 2010 WL 1957802 (S.D. Ohio May 14, 2010)

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)

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)

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

In re IKB Deutsche Industrie Bank AG, 2010 WL 1526070 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 8, 2010)

Key Insight: Denying third-party corporation?s motion to quash a subpoena, court rejected corporation?s claims of undue burden where the discovery sought was relevant to the foreign litigation and where the support for claims of burden was conclusory and failed to sufficiently identify the basis for the corporation?s objection or ?connect a dollar amount to the particular tasks that would be necessary to provide the requested information? and thus, the court was ?effectively prevented from making a meaningful determination as to whether the financial costs is unreasonable?

Nature of Case: Foreign litigation claiming $1.5 billion in damages arising from “Put Option Agreement”

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Estate of Eva Boles v. Nat?l Heritage Realty, Inc., 2010 WL 1759026 (N.D. Miss. Apr. 27, 2010)

Key Insight: Where production of defendants? general ledger was necessary because there was no suitable alternative to provide the information, but where defendants? counsel asserted that such production would require ?hundreds of hours? and involve great expense, court noted defendants failure to produce any details in support of its assertion and that plaintiff was willing to bear the reasonable costs and granted plaintiff?s motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: General ledger in electronic format

Eurand, Inc. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 266 F.R.D. 79 (D. Del. 2010)

Key Insight: Evaluating the adequacy of plaintiff?s search for a specific category of information, the court noted that the test to determine the appropriateness of a search is whether the search ?could?have been expected to produce the information requested?, determined that the information sought was likely to be found in the emails of the inventors of a specific patent, and ordered plaintiff to search the emails of the relevant inventors within a date range prescribed by the court; opinion included brief discussion of keyword searching and noted, “[n]either lawyers nor judges are generally qualified to opine that certain search terms or files are more or less likely to produce information than those keywords or data actually used or reviewed.”

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Camesi v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 2010 WL 3718867 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 20, 2010)

Key Insight: Stating that ?it is defendant?s responsibility to demonstrate objectively reasonable compliance? with the rules regarding ESI, the court found that defendants had failed to do so and denied their motion for a protective order; granting plaintiff?s motion to compel, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer to identify custodians for the purpose of limited discovery/sampling and to identify search terms to be utilized; court ordered defendants to identify potentially responsive ESI sources and to provide a reasonable description of the information stored therein in compliance with Local Rule 26.2

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., LLC v. Fujitsu Ltd., 2010 WL 1901776 (D. Utah May 10, 2010)

Key Insight: Addressing a number of issues related to the format and organization of plaintiff?s production and a motion to compel plaintiff?s response to interrogatories, court ordered the production of ESI in its native format where plaintiff failed to object to a request for the same but, where native production was not specified, plaintiff was allowed to select the form of production; unable to determine whether the burden of production of computer data from all computers used by plaintiff over a period of many years would outweigh the value of production, court ordered plaintiff to produce a detailed inventory of each computer and to allow sampling of one or two computers of defendant?s choice in order to determine the need for additional discovery

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drives

Tamburo v. Dworkin, No. 04 C 3317, 2010 WL 4867346 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2010)

Key Insight: Court declined to stay discovery pending resolution of defendants? Motion to Dismiss, but ?to ensure that discovery [was] proportional to the specific circumstances of the case, and to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this action,? ordered phased discovery and (citing the court?s Case Management Procedures, the Seventh Circuit Electronic Discovery Pilot Program, and the Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation) ordered that the parties cooperate to prepare a phased discovery schedule

Nature of Case: Defamation, tortuous interference with business and civil conspiracy arising from dispute over contents of dog-pedigree software

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Colony Ins. Co. v. Danley, Inc., 2010 WL 3894203 (D. Me. Oct. 4, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendants? counsel refused to electronically search its files for potentially responsive information, the court found the data ?not reasonably accessible? and denied plaintiffs? motion to compel the search where defendants? counsel had already spent 30 hours searching and had produced or logged the documents discovered in that search, and where plaintiffs? offered ?no reason to believe that further responsive documents exists or, if any do, that they are not cumulative??; ?alternatively? court denied the motion ?pursuant to 26(b)(2)(c)? where ?the burden ? of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit?

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic contents of files of defendants’ counsel

Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co, 2010 WL 1957802 (S.D. Ohio May 14, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant resisted plaintiff?s motion to compel additional searching based upon having already conducted an initial, agreed-upon keyword search and upon unsubstantiated claims that additional searching would be unduly burdensome regardless of prior efforts, court rejected defendant?s arguments absent a sufficient showing of burden, granted plaintiff?s motion, and ordered the parties to meet and confer to reach agreement regarding the searches

Nature of Case: Securities class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.