FRCP 26(b)(2)(C) Limitations – Page 5 – Electronic Discovery Law

Good v. Am. Water Works Co., Inc., No. 2:14-1374, 2015 WL 1757978 (S.D. W. Va. Apr. 17, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where defendant objected to Plaintiffs? requests for production on grounds of relevance, but nevertheless produced the information in the format in which it was ordinarily maintained (Microsoft SQL Server format) and also provided Plaintiffs with the means to access the data in a ?parallel environment? and then later in an excel format for a limited period of time, indicating that the earlier periods of time were not reasonably accessible, and where Plaintiffs ultimately ?did not disagree? that the information was not as useful as they had thought, the court found the rest of the requested information (from the earlier time periods) was not reasonably accessible and that the burden of production outweighed its likely benefit and denied the motion to compel unless good cause could be shown

Electronic Data Involved: Archived ?SCADA? data from a Microsoft SQL Server format

Andra Grp. LP v. JDA Software Grp., LLC, No. 3:15-mc-K-BN, 2015 WL 1636602 (N.D. Tex. April 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court addressed 3rd party?s motion to quash allegedly burdensome subpoena and to preclude further production or to require the defendant to pay for the non-party?s expenses and found that the defendant had demonstrated its needs for ?most of the categories of documents? but also concluded that the 3rd party?s objections should be sustained in part and modified the subpoena?s requests to reduce the burden; Court rejected arguments that 3rd party?s lack of a ?dedicated IT specialist?, use of cloud based email and need to rely on employees? and or hire a vendor establish burden; court also found that ?by producing the documents in non-readable PDF format without the metadata specified by the subpoena?s instructions, and failing to serve any written objections to those instructions, p202 failed to comply with Rule 45(a)(1)(C) and 45(e)(1)?s requirement to comply with the subpoena?s specification of a form for producing ESI? and ordered re-production in accordance with the subpoena?s instruction

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Unichappel Music, Inc. v. Modrock Prods., LLC, No. 14-2382-DDP (PLA), 2015 WL 12697738 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where responding party asserted that an at-issue request would require production of ?voluminous? irrelevant documents, that identification of the requested documents would require searching through thousands of clients files estimated to take ?one or more persons weeks to accomplish? or would cost between $8740 – $18350 if a vendor was retained to assist – not including attorney review, and that the information was available through alternative means, including depositions, the court concluded that the documents were ?at least minimally relevant? but that the burden of FULL production outweighed the benefit to the requesting party and ordered the responding party to utilize search terms or to hire a vendor to produce a more limited set of documents as prescribed by the court; court declined to shift the costs of the search , reasoning (in footnote) that ?[t]he mere fact that responding to a discovery request will require the objecting party ?to expend considerable time, effort and expense consulting, reviewing and analyzing ?huge volumes of documents and information? is an insufficient basis to object? to a relevant discovery request.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Lutzeier v. Citigroup Inc., No. 4:14-cv-00183-RLW, 2015 WL 430196 (E.D. Mo. Feb 2, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Addressing Plaintiff?s motion to add custodians, the court granted the motion, in part, but declined to compel the addition of high-level executives absent a showing that they had ?unique or personal knowledge of the subject matter that warrants their information?; Court found that the current ?search criteria adequately ensure[d]? the production of relevant documents and declined Plaintiff?s request for additional search terms except the phrase ?consent order? where confusion existed as to the existence of ?other? consent orders relevant to the case; where plaintiff was unsatisfied with Defendant?s production of more than 46,000 documents ?without providing any indication as to which documents are responsive to which of Plaintiff?s fifty-eight (58 ) enumerated requests,? but where the defendant represented that their production was ?fully text-searchable and contain[s] metadata permitting Plaintiff to identify, among other things, the custodians of the document, recipients, date and other key information,? the court found that the production was ?in a reasonably useable form or forms and/or the production is searchable, sortable and paired with relevant metadata? and thus was compliant with the parties? ESI agreement and with Rule 34

Nature of Case: Wrongful discharge; Age Discrimination; Dodd Frank; Sarbanes-Oxley

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Bagely v. Yale University, —F. supp. 3d—, No. 3:13-CV-1890 CSH, 2015 WL 1897425 (D. Conn. Apr. 27, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court denied motion for protective order seeking permission to be excused from the obligation to conduct further discovery where, although defendant claimed that prior production efforts had resulted in a less than 8% responsiveness rate, the court reasoned that Rule 26(b)(2)(B) ?measures the phrase ?not reasonably accessible? by whether it exposes the responding party to ?undue cost.? Not some cost: undue cost . . .? and where the court reasoned that Plaintiff had, in any event, shown good cause for further discovery; court?s discussion provides good analysis of issues related to 26(b)(2)(B)

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from agreed upon custodians

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Warren Chiropractic & Rehab Clinic, P.C., No. 4:14-CV-11521, 2015 WL 4094115 (E.D. Mich. July 7, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel and rejected objections based on burden where Defendants offered no evidence in support of the alleged claims of burden nor ?any specificity regarding the approximate cost of production?

Nature of Case: Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

US ex rel Oughatiyan v. IPC The Hospitalist Co., Inc., No. 09 C 5418, 2015 WL 4249195 (N.D. Ill. July 14, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court addressed motion to compel nationwide discovery in action for fraudulent billing of Medicare and Medicaid but, considering the ?scope of discovery expressed in Rule 26(b)(1) along with the principle of proportionality implicit in Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii)? limited initial phase of discovery to the seven states regarding which ?factual allegations? had been alleged in the complaint, recognizing that ?staged discovery [was] the way to move discovery forward,? and indicated that the motion would be denied without prejudice

Nature of Case: False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI records from nationwide locations

Artt v. Orange Lake Country Club Realty, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-956-Orl-40TBS, 2015 WL 4911086 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: In FLSA case seeking compensation for ?off the clock? work, court found that defendant?s request for any social media activity posted between 7AM and 7PM on any date between June 19, 2011 and Plaintiff?s termination was ?on its face overbroad, unduly burdensome and unreasonable?

Nature of Case: FLSA

Electronic Data Involved: Social media

In re Uehling, No. 1:14-mc-00009-LJO-BAM, 2014 WL 1577459 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion to compel nonparty to answer deposition questions and produce documents, finding that nonparty’s burden of producing copy of external hard drive containing 9.47 gigabytes of information was substantial as the material would need to be reviewed for privilege and for potential redaction and withholding based on confidentiality, privacy and proprietary information purposes, the benefit of the documents to defendant was “minimal,” and defendant had an alternative source for the information sought (i.e., the plaintiff)

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive that non-party witness provided to DOJ in the course of the DOJ’s investigation of plaintiff

Executive Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Fifth Third Bank, No. 1:13-cv-00582-WTL-MJD, 2014 WL 5529895 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 3, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Granting in part plaintiff’s motion to compel, court rejected defendant’s assertion of irrelevance and its conclusory assertions of burdensomeness, finding that defendant had failed to “show with specificity” that plaintiff’s requests were overly burdensome and noting that defendant’s contentions would have more force if defendant had provided an estimate of the cost or hours involved in searching, compiling, and producing the requested information; addressing the discovery of ESI ?more directly,? court ordered defendant to file a disclosure stating the names of all custodians whose ESI was searched, the scope of the ESI searched, date ranges searched for each custodian and specific search terms used, and also provide such information for any additional custodians whose ESI would be searched in light the withdrawal of defendant?s objections; plaintiff was then required, within seven days, to propose a list of additional custodians and scope of ESI, date ranges and specific search terms for such custodians, following which the parties should endeavor to reach agreement regarding the scope of additional e-discovery

Nature of Case: Claims for breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing and breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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