FRCP 26(b)(2)(C) Limitations – Page 15 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

EEOC v. Supervalu, Inc., 2010 WL 5071196 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 7, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of portions of defendants? human resources database where defendants showed that it would take at least a week, perhaps longer, to write the code necessary to pull the requested data and where the information sought required ?significant analysis? and relied on an unproven assumption such that plaintiff did not establish that ?the purported relevance or benefit of the information outweigh[ed] the burden or expense of producing it?

Nature of Case: Violations of ADA

Electronic Data Involved: Portion of Human Resources database

Edelen v. Campbell Soup Co., 2010 WL 774186 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 2, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court ordered 4 pages of privileged documents be returned to defendants where the pages were privileged on their face and inadvertently produced (4 pages of privileged material were produced among 2000 pages and the documents were subject to review by three attorneys prior to production) and where counsel immediately sought their return upon discovery of their production; court ordered narrowing of search terms and fewer custodians upon defendants? objection to plaintiffs? proposed scope (including 55 custodians and 50 search terms) where plaintiff failed to respond to the objection within the ten day period provided by the court

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, privileged materials

Lynch v. Int. Assoc. of Machinist & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, 2010 WL 5299879 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 17, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant claimed it did not regularly maintain the information requested and that to search for such information manually in its database would result in substantial cost, the court found that plaintiff had not shown that the likely results of a search would produce admissible evidence or that such evidence could justify the expense to defendant and denied plaintiff?s motion to compel, including plaintiff?s request for the entire database to be produced; where plaintiff?s request ?showed a preference for maintaining functionality but did not specify a format for response? and where the request for Excel format was verbal and occurred after defendant had begun to generate its production in Word format, court found production in Word format was sufficient and that defendant did not convert the information to remove functionality in contravention of Rule 34

Nature of Case: Allegations arising from union’s failure to pursue plaintiff?s grievances following his retirement

Electronic Data Involved: Database

In re Subpoenas, 692 F.Supp.2d 602 (W.D.Va. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where recipient of government subpoenas refused to comply on grounds of unreasonableness and burden, court approved government?s offer to reduce number of custodians from 13 to 3 (out of a workforce of approximately 72,000) and ordered recipient to produce live emails and snapshot of emails from backup tapes for each of the years between 2002 and 2008 which, the court noted, had been preserved for other litigation

Nature of Case: Government investigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email, snapshot of email from backup tapes

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