FRCP 26(b)(2)(C) Limitations – Page 7 – Electronic Discovery Law

FDIC v. Bowden, No. CV413-245, 2014 WL 2548137 (S.D. Ga. June 6, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where FDIC spent $614,000 to digitally scan about 2.01 terabytes of data or 153.6 million pages of documents after taking over failing bank, and before any written document requests were served, court evaluated parties? competing proposals for conducting e-discovery, discussed the governing standards for manner of document production, formatting issues, and cost-shifting for digital format conversion expenses, and ultimately approved protocol offered by FDIC; court further instructed that, in the event of any further ESI-protocol disagreement or objection to the court?s decision, the parties must first confer and attempt to craft a joint ESI protocol or consent order in light of the principles highlighted in the court?s ruling

Nature of Case: Bank receiver brought bank mismanagement case against 16 of bank’s former directors and officers

Electronic Data Involved: Records of failed bank

Sasol N. Am., Inc. v. Kan. State Inst. for Commercialization, No. 14-mc-218-JWL-KMH, 2014 WL 3894357 (D. Kan. Aug. 8, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Despite fact that plaintiff served all-encompassing subpoena to third parties without first attempting to access the breadth of information from the defendant, in light of nonparty?s unique relationship with defendant in the underlying Texas litigation, the potential for indemnification, its financial interest in the Texas litigation, and nonparty?s repeated (yet unfulfilled) promises to produce responsive material, court determined it was appropriate for nonparty to bear some burden and that limited production was appropriate; court narrowed relevant timeframe for search and ordered nonparty to use search terms proposed by plaintiff and produce its ESI, including emails, attachments, exhibits and word processing documents, which contain those nine search terms

Nature of Case: Subpoena issued in a patent infringement and trade secret case pending in the Southern District of Texas

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Black & Veatch Corp. v. Aspen Ins. (UK) Ltd., No. 12-2350-SAC, 2014 WL 806122 (D. Kan. Feb. 28, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied in most respects plaintiff’s motion for protective order, finding that plaintiff’s undue burden and expense arguments were unsupported and conclusory; court further denied plaintiff’s alternative proposal to shift some of the uncalculated ESI costs onto defendants as plaintiff failed to show that the disputed ESI production was inaccessible because of undue burden or cost, and because other relevant factors did not weigh in plaintiff’s favor; court further denied plaintiff?s request for a discovery conference or appointment of an ESI master, and ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding the proper method to search custodian hard drives, and suggested the parties consider a clawback provision specifically for ESI harvested after running the parties? respective search terms

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage dispute

Electronic Data Involved: ESI in databases and stored on custodian hard drives

In re Incretin Mimetics Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL Case No. 13md2452 AJB (MDD), 2014 WL 4987877 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants estimated that cost of production would be between $280,000 and $400,000, or even greater, court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of adverse event source documents and databases, finding that the additional time and expense of identifying, redacting, and producing the source files outweighed the likely benefit resulting from evaluating source files for instances of mis-classification

Nature of Case: Products liability

Electronic Data Involved: Source documents underlying adverse event reports and adverse event databases

Shipley v. Forest Labs., No. 1:06-cv-00048-TC-DBP, 2014 WL 4270939 (D. Utah Aug. 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Stating it could not speculate about defendant’s claimed burden given lack of any details, court granted in part plaintiff’s motion to compel and ordered defendant to run a preliminary search of custodial files belonging to particular sales representatives using search terms and time limits set forth in Case Profile Form, and to submit a certification to the court describing the volume of responsive documents and the approximate cost defendant would incur in running a full search through its vendor and through privilege review; once the court received the certification, it would determine whether the burden of producing such custodial documents outweighed the benefit of production

Nature of Case: Products liability wrongful death action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

BLX Commercial Capital, LLC v. Bilco Tools, Inc., No. 14-0306, 2014 WL 6684929 (E.D. La. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants requested emails from six employees and all emails regarding liquidation and appraisal of Bilco, and request was further narrowed by the use of eight search terms, plaintiff?s counsel was unable to articulate a specific reason why emails were not relevant and represented to the court that he had not actually reviewed any of the emails at issue to determine their relevancy, court denied plaintiff?s motion for protective order and granted defendants? motion to compel production of emails

Nature of Case: Breach of loan agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Email of current and former BLX employees

Chickadaunce v. Minott, No. 1:13-cv-01223-WTL-MJD, 2014 WL 4980547 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 6, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Considering the totality of circumstances and balancing the highly relevant and probative value of the information sought with the slight burden to defendant of preparing a database of case files (estimated by defendant to be 15-20 hours), and taking into account society’s interest in furthering the truthseeking function in the case, court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel and ordered defendants to produce database of electronic case files within 14 days

Nature of Case: Class of approximately 4,800 disabled individuals sued officials of Indiana Family & Social Services Administration alleging violations of Americans with Disabilities Act and other claims

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic case files of approximately 200 past and current class members

E.E.O.C. v. Forge Ind. Staffing, Inc., No. 1:14-mc-00090-SEB-MJD, 2014 WL 6673574 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where former employee filed claim with EEOC alleging sexual harassment and retaliation, and EEOC issued a subpoena to employer staffing agency seeking information to determine how long the staffing agency had required applicants to waive statutorily protected statutes of limitations, court declined to enforce the subpoena, finding that the EEOC’s subpoena exceeded its authority in that the information sought went beyond the issues arising out of former employee?s individual charge; court further determined that the burden imposed on the staffing agency far exceeded the minimal relevance of the evidence sought, given that staffing agency processed 130,000 temporary employee applications during the time period covered by the subpoena, applications were not kept in a central repository or electronically, and compliance would require manual review of each employment application maintained in paper format at each of its ten office locations and would disrupt agency’s day-to-day operations

Nature of Case: Motion for enforcement of administrative subpoena issued to staffing agency relating to investigation of former employee’s claim of sexual harrassment and retaliation

Electronic Data Involved: Versions of employment application form used by staffing agency between January 1, 2012 and May 31, 2014, including all pages of and revisions to each form

In re Bridgepoint Educ., Inc., No. 12cv1737 JM (JLB), 2014 WL 3867495 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Plaintiff sought to expand the scope of defendants? review and argued that defendants? alleged cost and burden would be lower than represented because defendants based their representations on manual review, rather than predictive coding. Defendants responded that manual review was still necessary where the predictive coding tool merely indicated a probability that a document was relevant and was not ?foolproof? – thus requiring the review. Relying on Rule 26(b)(2)(C), the court concluded that the additional discovery would be unduly burdensome and declined to grant Plaintiff?s request. The court also addressed Plaintiff?s request to require the defendants to run documents already produced through the predictive coding process. The court declined, reasoning that it had previously approved defendants? method of ?using linear screening with the aid of search terms? but, where defendant was willing to run additional terms, directed the parties to meet to discuss such terms.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Enargy Power (Shenzhen) Co. v. Xiaolong Wang, No. 13-11348-DJC, 2014 WL 4687542 (D. Mass. Sep. 17, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants maintained hard copy business records that they produced electronically on CD-ROM, but did not make a sufficient showing that documents were produced as they were kept in the usual course of business since defendants provided no details regarding where and how documents were maintained, court ordered defendants to organize and label documents to correspond to the categories of documents requested by plaintiffs; court further ruled that defendants need not ?affirm that their document searches and productions are complete without qualification, or that no additional responsive documents exist,? but directed defendants, once they had completed their search and produced all documents they intended to produce, to confirm their efforts in locating responsive documents were complete and whether they were withholding any documents

Nature of Case: Violations of Computer Fraud & Abuse Act, conversion, misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy documents scanned and produced on CD-ROM

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