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

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

Design Basics, LLC v. Carhart Lumber Co., No. 8:13CV125, 2014 WL 6669844 (D. Neb. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where court had previously ruled that, absent an order of the court upon a showing of good cause or stipulation by the parties, a party from whom ESI has been requested shall not be required to search for responsive ESI: (a) from more than 10 key custodians, (b) that was created more than five years before the filing of the lawsuit, (c) from sources that are not reasonably accessible without undue burden or cost, or (d) for more than 160 hours, inclusive of time spent identifying potentially responsive ESI, collecting that ESI, searching that ESI and reviewing that ESI for responsiveness, confidentiality and privilege or work product, and plaintiff subsequently moved to compel additional computer imaging, court balanced Rule 26(b)(2)(B) considerations and, acknowledging that defendant had provided both electronic and paper copies of all blueprints, performed plaintiff?s requested search on the email copied from 11 computers, had invested many hours reviewing thousands of documents for privilege and had offered to produce the non-privileged emails to plaintiff?s counsel for his review and had provided suggested deposition dates for defendant?s president, and noting that plaintiff neither reviewed the email nor deposed anyone notwithstanding that case was more then 18 months old, concluded that requested discovery was not reasonable and proportional to the issues raised in the litigation, denied plaintiff?s motion to compel, granted defendant?s motion for protective order, and ordered parties to complete and file an appended Rule 26(f) Report

Nature of Case: Design misappropriation

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic images of every computer or data storage location used by defendant

In re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1917, 2014 WL 5462496 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District court overruled defendant?s objections to magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granted the direct action plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of documents located in France in accordance with the FRCP; court evaluated a series of factors in weighing whether foreign laws like the French Blocking Statute excused compliance with an American discovery request, and concluded that the relevant factors weighed in favor of permitting discovery to go forward in France pursuant to the FRCP; court dismissed defendant?s argument that it would be subject to criminal sanctions if it complied with discovery requests outside the Hague Convention process, observing that there was no realistic risk of prosecution under the French Blocking Statute

Nature of Case: Violations of U.S. antitrust laws

Electronic Data Involved: Documents held by a defendant in France that were relevant to such defendant’s communications with competitors, and documents produced to various foreign regulatory agencies during prior investigations related to price fixing in the CRT industry

Peterson v. Matlock, No. 11-2594 (FLW)(DEA), 2014 WL 5475236 (D.N.J. Oct. 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiff’s medical records were previously provided in a PDF file organized in reverse chronological order and plaintiffs agreed to provide metadata contained in the audit trail, and plaintiff then sought production of the records either in their native format with the required software reader or broken down into “searchable headings,” court found that defendants had demonstrated they would suffer substantial hardship and/or expense in complying with plaintiff?s request to provide the records in their native format, and that such burden outweighed plaintiff?s interests in receiving the records in native format

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged assault by correctional officers

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s electronically stored medical records

Warren Indus., Inc. v. PMG Ind. Corp., No. 13-CV-13026, 2014 WL 5705011 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 5, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court rejected defendants’ argument that they did not have access to the email of defendants? Chairman of the Board because the email was kept on a server in Germany that defendants did not own or control, and ruled that, although defendants’ IT manager may not be able to access the Chairman’s email from his Indiana location, the Chairman, as Chairman of the Board of defendant companies, “indeed has possession, custody, and control over his own e-mail communications, regardless of where the server containing these e-mails [was] located; court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel and awarded plaintiff its attorney’s fees and costs associated with the motion

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on server in Germany

Harrington Enters., Inc. v. Safety-Kleen Sys., Inc., No. 13-00167-CV-W-BP, 2014 WL 12611318 (W.D. Mo. July 11, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel searches of current and proposed custodians using additional search terms where Plaintiff failed to establish the relevance of the terms or the likelihood they would lead to admissible evidence and where Defendant had already provided discovery regarding the alleged issue, thus rendering the discovery cumulative and duplicative; court also denied motion to add custodians where Plaintiff again failed to establish relevance and where Defendant had shown that the ESI for the requested custodians was not reasonably accessible because it would require restoration of disaster backup tapes and ?substantial time, effort, and cost? to search

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (additional search terms, custodians)

Freres v. Xyngular Corp., No. 2:13-cv-400-DAK-PMW, 2014 WL 1320273 (D. Utah Mar. 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel production of Plaintiff?s cell phone for copying and inspection and rejected Plaintiff?s arguments that the information sought was beyond the scope of discovery, that the inspection should not be allowed because the phone contained personal and/or privileged materials (which the court reasoned the Standard Protective Order would adequately address), and that the inspection was unduly burdensome; court acknowledged Plaintiff?s concern that the phone was her ?only point of contact in the case of an emergency? and ordered Defendant to obtain and pay for an alternate cell phone for Plaintiff?s use while hers was away

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Cellular Phone

Palma v. Metro PCS Wireless, Inc., 18 F.Supp.3d 1346 (M.D. Fla. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Observing that, generally, social media content is neither privileged nor protected by any right of privacy, nevertheless, a defendant does not have a generalized right to rummage at will through information that plaintiff has limited from public view, court denied defendant?s motion to compel, questioning the relevance of the material sought and finding that ?the burden of requiring all of the opt-in Plaintiffs to review all of their postings on potentially multiple social media sites over a period of four years and determine which posts relate to their job, hours worked, or this case, would be an ?extremely onerous and time-consuming task’?

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Posts to social media accounts and private messages sent from social media sites

Bradfield v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., No. 5:13-cf-222-Oc-10PRL, 2014 WL 4626864 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs? law firm experienced severe power surge that damaged server and firm engaged IT expert who made good faith effort to restore and obtain all data on firm?s computer system, including data responsive to defendant?s document requests, court found that plaintiffs had met their burden of showing that additional ESI was not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost, and further determined that circumstances did not warrant forensic examination of firm?s computer system as defendant failed to show good cause for the examination and could not demonstrate that the likely benefit of the discovery sought outweighed the significant burden and expense, considering the importance of the issues at stake and notwithstanding defendant?s offer to bear the financial cost of the forensic examination

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage dispute

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