Key Insight: Judge reluctantly agreed with plaintiff that TAR should be applied before keyword searches used to cull data set.
Nature of Case: Products Liability
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Keywords: TAR; keyword; data cull
Key Insight: Plaintiff requested Defendant run 72 “spelling variations” of 5 terms allowed by prior court order. Court denied and allowed 20, but did not apply sanctions yet.
Nature of Case: Libel/Slander
Electronic Data Involved: Various ESI
Keywords: search terms; sanctions; cooperation
Key Insight: How much access of a party’s electronic information system does rule 34(a) give a party?
Nature of Case: Trade secrets
Electronic Data Involved: Responsive documents
Keywords: ESI protocol, Forensic images, overly broad
Key Insight: Court declined to compel Defendant to conduct additional searches of witnesses? email accounts using 88 new search terms and excluding Plaintiff?s name finding that the request was ?overly broad and not proportional to the case? and reasoning that Plaintiff relied upon a multi-plaintiff case to justify her position and that she had not provided specifics regarding what she reasonably expected to find or shown that the information could not be found through other means, such as by asking additional questions of witnesses already scheduled for deposition ; court ordered Defendant to produce the relevant policies it operated under where Defendant claimed emails were deleted in the ordinary course of business according to Company policy, and that Defendant should also provide Plaintiff with the date of the deletion and the name of the person who made the deletion or the process of deletion, if known
Nature of Case: Wrongful termination
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Where Defendant responded to court?s inquiries regarding its search efforts and marked its search terms and a ?non-exhaustive list of topic areas of documents produced to Plaintiff? as attorney work product, court reasoned that ?this is precisely the type information which is generally shared by counsel in complex civil litigation cases so that they may reach an agreement regarding the scope of production of ESI? and that ?[t]he norm in these cases is that counsel for both sides review and agree in advance on the parameters of the search, on any search terms to be used, and on the specific custodians whose files are to be searched? and ordered Defendant to file unredacted copies on ECF, but indicated that they would be under seal to protect information covered by the Stipulation and Order of Confidentiality
Electronic Data Involved: Search terms
Key Insight: Where, in email, the parties agreed to use certain search terms and one party produced all such hits except those deemed privileged while the other produced only relevant documents, court indicated that if it were to construe the emails as a binding contract, Defendant would be in breach, but found that it was not a contract and reasoned that there was no evidence that relevant documents were withheld nor that additional searches would produce more responsive documents, and thus denied Plaintiff?s motion to compel
Nature of Case: Defamation
Electronic Data Involved: ESI identified by agreed search terms
Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiff?s motion to compel the production of emails containing Plaintiff?s name as a search hit and granted in part Defendant?s motion for a protective order where Defendant established that the emails were not reasonably accessible in light of the time and minimum costs of production, estimated at $45,825, and where the court also found they were not proportional to the needs of the case; although the court found Plaintiff?s proposed terms overbroad (her name) the court disagreed with Defendant?s time limitation on its own search for emails where prior discriminatory acts, even if not actionable, could be used as background evidence and ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding appropriate search terms to be used to search the accounts of 3 custodians over a 4 year period
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel inspection of Defendant?s personal computer that was utilized for business where Plaintiff established that relevant information was likely stored there, where the information was potentially ?critical? to Plaintiff?s case (regarding whether Defendant had utilized Plaintiff?s confidential information), where there was ?no other avenue? to obtain the requested discovery, where the costs did not appear substantial, where Plaintiff?s counsel made a good faith effort at alternative resolutions before brining the motion, and?notably?where Defendant had previously agreed to the inspection (but later objected); court also granted access to Defendant?s email accounts, including disclosure of his passwords; as to both repositories, court ordered the parties? to agree on a search protocol/search terms that included allowing Defendant to review the results of the search prior to production
Nature of Case: Defendant’s alleged use of Plaintiff’s confidential files to underbid Plaintiff on various projects
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email
Key Insight: The parties in this case agreed to produce ESI ?in accordance with the Southern District?s Order Governing Discovery of Electronically Stored Information.? Defendant sought production of all documents that ??hit? on the parties? agreed-upon search terms without further relevance review,? arguing that the terms were narrowly tailored and that any resulting hits were ?presumptively relevant and responsive.? Plaintiffs argued that Defendant?s interpretation of the order was contrary to law and conflicted with the language of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), among other things. Citing a declaration from Plaintiff?s CEO that the search hits, which for some terms numbered in the thousands or tens of thousands, contained a substantial number of irrelevant documents, the court agreed that ?culling for relevance [was] warranted.?
Nature of Case: Patent Infringement
Electronic Data Involved: ESI (search hits)
Key Insight: Where Defendant formulated search terms and identified custodians unilaterally before undertaking its search and where plaintiff suspected the results were insufficient based on both the low volume of information produced and the failure to produce certain expected information (based on third parties? productions), the court considered Defendant?s multiple proposals for addressing the issue and determined that starting again, from scratch, was most appropriate; addressing whether the cost was disproportionate, court declined to characterize the costs as ?additional expense,? reasoning that Defendant ?should have resolved these issues before undertaking its unilateral search?
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.