FRCP 26(b)(2)(C) Limitations – Page 4 – Electronic Discovery Law

Colonial Bancgroup, Inc. v. Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP., No. 2:11-cv-746-WKW, 2016 WL 9687001 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 22, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought production of specific folders from e-mail inboxes after defendant had already produced e-mails from those custodians as identified by keyword search terms r, the court found the request duplicative and denied plaintiff?s request. Where plaintiff sought to compel additional searches likely to capture information well beyond that to which plaintiff was entitled and resisted a compromise offer of running the searches with restrictive terms designed to weed out irrelevant information, the court granted the request for additional searches but also granted defendant?s request to include limiting terms to restrict the capture of irrelevant data. Where plaintiff requested a sworn affidavit detailing defendant?s litigation hold efforts including the ?specific actions? which hold notice recipients were directed to take and any enforcement efforts, the court agreed with defendant that specific actions and enforcement efforts were subject to attorney-client privilege but directed plaintiff to ?provide this information via ?sworn affidavit? in a manner which, does not invoke the work product doctrine or violate the attorney-client privilege OR to make a specific legal and factual showing [] as to any work product objection or attorney-client privilege claim? and also ordered production of the other requested information, including custodian names and document types subject to the hold.

Nature of Case: Professional Negligence

Electronic Data Involved: e-mail

Nkansah v. Martinez (Middle District of Lousiana, 2016)

Nov 07 2016

Key Insight: Even broadly worded discovery requests can be granted as long as the information is relevant to discovery and no objections are made

Nature of Case: Automobile accident insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic records

Keywords: Truck, accident, insurance

View Case Opinion

Davis v. Crescent Electric Company et al. (D. S.D., 2016)

Oct 12 2016

Key Insight: NDA adequately protects confidential and/or privileged information during forensic examination

Nature of Case: employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: email

Keywords: forensic examination

View Case Opinion

Dao v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston (Northern District of CA, 2016)

Feb 23 2016

Key Insight: if the balance of the discovery requests outweighed their benefit

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud , negligent misrepresentation, declaratory relief and unfair competition.

Electronic Data Involved: responses of three interrogatories in light of changes to rule 26

Keywords: proportionality, motion to compel, balance of request, benefit of requested discovery

View Case Opinion

City of Sterling Heights Gen. Emps.? Ret. Sys. V. Prudential Fin., Inc., No. 12-05275(MCA)(LDW), 2015 WL 5055241 (D.N.J. Aug. 21, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Citing its broad discretion to manage discovery and the limitations posed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C), court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs? motion to compel Defendant to identify additional custodians and utilize additional search terms and ordered that Plaintiffs would be allowed to choose up to 10 additional custodians and that Defendant must apply the four disputed search terms proposed by Plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Securities Class Action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Webb v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., No. 13-1947(JRT/JJK), 2015 WL 317215 (D. Minn. Jan. 26, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court overruled parties’ objections to Magistrate Judge’s order addressing scope of discovery where underlying court properly considered and applied the principle of proportionality; addressing defendant’s alleged costs of production, court reasoned in part that ?The fact that a corporation has an unwieldy record keeping system which requires it to incur heavy expenditures of time and effort to produce requested documents is an insufficient reason to prevent disclosure of otherwise discoverable information.?

Nature of Case: Products liability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Weidenhamer v. Expedia, Inc., No. C14-1239RAJ, 2015 WL 7158212 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel Defendant to search for documents from non-U.S. points of sale where the court found such documents would be of ?marginal relevance at best? and that the burden and expense of production outweighed the benefit, noting that such production would ?vastly expand? an already voluminous production, would entail additional translation costs, and would ?potentially require the involvement of additional entities or foreign law??; court also declined to compel Defendant to conduct searches of Account Representatives for 170 different airlines where Plaintiff failed to establish that the expanded search would reveal additional relevant information and noting that the productions of third party air carriers had not revealed any ?glaring deficiencies? in Defendant?s production

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Siriano v. Goodman Mfg. Co., L.P., No. 2:14-cv-1131, 2015 WL 8259548 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 9, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Applying the proportionality factors in Rule 26(b)(1) (including specific contemplation of Defendants? ?corporate resources? and the ?potentially very large? amount in controversy) and reasoning that the Sixth Circuit has held that ?limiting the scope of discovery is appropriate when compliance ?would prove unduly burdensome,? not merely time-consuming or expensive? and that Defendants failed to propose an alternative method of discovery ?enabling some lesser degree of production,? the court directed the parties to cooperate and indicated it would schedule a conference to discuss ?whether and to what extent discovery should proceed in phases?

Nature of Case: Putative class action re: design or manufacturing defect

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Knauf Insulation, LLC v. Johns Manville Corp., No. 1:15-cv-00111-WTL-MJD, 2015 WL 7089725 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Defendants identified 38 potential email custodians who may possess relevant ESI but proposed to load the emails of only ten custodians to save money and ?facilitate the predictive coding process? and where Plaintiff indicated that Defendant refused to informally disclose information sufficient to evaluate the importance of each custodian, the court briefly opined re: e-Discovery and the lack of any guarantee that all relevant documents will be found and then, reasoning that it had no evidence with which to weigh the likelihood that the 28 ?tangential custodians? would have relevant information but that in ?a high value? case the burden of $18,000 (the amount Defendant proposed to save) did not outweigh the potential benefit to Plaintiff of receiving the emails, declined Defendants? request to limit custodians; regarding cost-shifting, the court ordered that if the search of the 28 additional custodians returned fewer than 500 responsive documents Plaintiff would bear the cost of loading the materials but that if more than 500 were identified, Defendant would bear the costs

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Shaw v. Experian Info. Sol., Inc., 2015 WL 1260552 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court granted Plaintiffs? motion to compel production of defendant database records. Defendant argued that the harm to third parties from disclosure of personal information contained in the requested data outweighed the relevance of the information to plaintiffs? claim, and that the preparation, review, and production presented an undue burden. Finding that the requested data was highly relevant to the class certification requirements, the court concluded plaintiffs? need significantly outweighed privacy concerns given the option of producing subject to protective order and Plaintiffs? agreement to accept data with personal information redacted. Nor was the court persuaded by defendant?s burden argument, finding the estimate and explanation from plaintiffs? database consultant ?more persuasive, appropriate, and accurate? than that provided by defendant – particularly in light of modifications Plaintiffs made to their request after defendant clarified how the data was stored in their systems. The court also noted that defendant?s briefing failed to allege any facts supporting its assertion that the information was more readily available from other sources.

Nature of Case: Class Action; Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act

Electronic Data Involved: Database

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