FRCP 26(b)(2)(C) Limitations – Page 18 – Electronic Discovery Law

Mauna Kea Beach Hotel Corp. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 2009 WL 1227850 (D. Haw. May 1, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: In insurance dispute, where defendant appealed the order of the Magistrate arguing that discovery requests, even as limited by Magistrate?s order, were unreasonable and burdensome in light of need to review thousands of claims without the capability to search electronically, District court ruled that discovery of related claims should be limited to claims from Hawaii and ordered production of such claims from 2003 to present

Nature of Case: Claims of bad faith, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment arising from insurance dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Electronically stored claims information

In re Direct Sw., Inc. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Litig., 2009 WL 2461716 (E.D. La. Aug. 7, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where parties disagreed about whether defendants were required to search for ESI using plaintiffs? search terms or using their own, court denied motion for reconsideration and upheld prior order requiring defendants to ?certify that they conducted a complete search using the terms found on plaintiff?s search term list? despite defendants? claims that using such terms would ?produce many false hits and require them to incur costs of $100,000 to produce the ESI?

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Wilson v. Farris, 2009 WL 1393688 (M.D. Fla. May 15, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant represented that searching for requested documents would require ?hundreds of hours to complete? because each search resulted in thousands of records to be read and cross checked against hard copy to determine there responsiveness, and where defendant further indicated that the searching undertaken thus far yielded ?very few if any documents? that were responsive to plaintiff?s request, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production finding the required search ?unduly burdensome?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

McGarry v. Becher, 2009 WL 1363456 (S.D. Ind. May 13, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Rejecting defendant?s claims that production of data stored in taser units related to the time and number of firings would be unduly burdensome in light of the high number of times the tasers were fired, including test firings required each day, Court granted in part plaintiff?s motion to compel production of the data upon finding that the device stored data related to no more than 585 firings, among other things, and where defendants made no showing that the printing of those entries would be unduly expensive; court ordered plaintiff to bear any cost of printing or downloading the information in excess of $200

Nature of Case: Potential class action regarding use of tasers in county jail

Electronic Data Involved: Data stored in taser related to date and time fired

Moore v. Napolitano, 2009 WL 2450280 (Aug. 7, 2009 D.D.C.)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant objected to magistrate judge?s order ?to do what the [Rules] already require in no uncertain terms, and that is to search for the responsive documents and produce them? (where defendant had unilaterally decided not to look for ESI), court rejected defendant?s objections, including her argument of undue burden, where plaintiffs? use of broad language did not automatically render them overbroad and where declarations in support of the alleged burden were ?largely conclusory?, where magistrate?s order (and Federal Rules) did not require futile searching where it was clear no documents would be found (after good faith inquiry), and where defendant offered only speculation that her search would result in ?needless duplication?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Medcorp, Inc. v. Pinpoint Tech., Inc., 2009 WL 2194036 (D. Colo. July 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Noting that a party seeking discovery from a non-party ?must satisfy a burden of proof heavier than the ordinary burden imposed by Rule 26 relating to discovery on any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action,? the special master quashed certain of plaintiff?s requests as overly broad and unduly burdensome including a request for forensic copies of a non-party?s employee work stations and server computers and a request for detailed information related to a the non-party?s technical environment, among others

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic copies

Covad Commc?ns Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 258 F.R.D. 5 (D.D.C. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where parties failed to reach agreement regarding inspection protocol for defendant?s relevant database, court stepped in and ordered plaintiff?s expert to image relevant servers and PCs and to search those systems for relevant documents; having generally declined to order searching of defendant?s exchange servers absent more than conclusory assertions of a deficient production, court found compelling justification for a comparative search of certain exchange servers where, in light of a previous server crash and subsequent restoration of the content, questions arose regarding the identification of all responsive emails

Nature of Case: Misappropriation and conversion of trade secret information

Electronic Data Involved: Database, emails, ESI

Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC, 2009 WL 2568431 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found emails ?not reasonably accessible? in light of representations of undue burden, including the need for vendor assistance to accomplish the necessary searching, and, upon shifting the burden to defendant to show ?good cause? for the additional emails sought, ordered some specific searching using specific terms and for the parties to confer to identify additional custodians

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

High Voltage Beverages, LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. 2009 WL 2915026 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant represented that any additional searching would only result in the discovery and production of duplicative documents, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel defendant to search an identified alternative source upon finding ?that requiring defendant to sift sand for documents it has already produced would be unreasonably duplicative of earlier efforts and that the material contained therein is likely available from other sources, to wit, an earlier production of documents?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Feig v. The Apple Org.., 2009 WL 1515506 (S.D. Fla. May 29, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant alleged that identifying responsive employee emails was too burdensome in light of inability to search emails electronically, court found defendant had not satisfactorily established inability to search and ordered production of requested emails; court acknowledged that if defendant established the inability to search electronically, identifying requested emails would be overly burdensome and, in the event searching was truly impossible, ordered defendants to move for a protective order supported by an affidavit of a forensic expert providing an explanation

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

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