Motion to Compel – Page 37 – Electronic Discovery Law

Vaigasi v. Solow Mgmt. Corp., No. 11 Civ. 5088 (RMB)(HBP), 2016 WL 616386 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiff?s motion to compel a response to his second set of document requests (consisting of 168 pages and 1,027 individual requests), noting several procedural and ?substantive defects,? including that Plaintiff?s requests were ?grossly irrelevant? and sought ?numerous documents that ha[d] nothing to do with the claims or defenses? and disproportional to the case (citing Defendant?s prior production of approximately 1,000 pages of documents), even despite the ?strong federal policy against employment discrimination?; addressing defendant?s motion for sanctions, court concluded that ?Plaintiff?s Second Document Request was unquestionably prepared and served in bad faith and in a conscious effort to impose an unreasonable burden on defendants? and cited Plaintiff?s numerous document requests, violation of two prior discovery orders and other ?obstructive behavior? and granted a protective order relieving defendant of the obligation to respond and ordered that Plaintiff was prohibited from offering or using any document not already produced, that Plaintiff must submit to a medical exam (as was previously ordered) or suffer dismissal of his case, and that Plaintiff would be liable for the attorneys fees incurred by Defendants in addressing the motions resolved in this opinion

Nature of Case: Employment litigation (Title VII, Age Discrimination, ADA, etc.)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Bagley v. Yale Univ., No. 3:13-CV-1890 (CSH), 2016 WL 7407707 (D. Conn. Dec. 22, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court granted Plaintiff?s motion to compel production of litigation hold notices and related responses to a survey regarding recipients? computer use where, despite the absence of specific evidence of spoliation or a pending spoliation motion, the delayed (9-11 months) and rolling issuance of litigation holds was described by the court as ?leisurely, to an extent making it impossible to dismiss as frivolous [Plaintiff?s] suggestion that she might move for a spoliation sanction? and where the court reasoned that Plaintiff was ?entitled to discovery in these areas, in order to discern the merit or lack of merit of a formal claim for spoliation claim? [sic]; regarding assertions that the hold notices were privileged, the court reasoned that ?the predominant purpose of the communication was to give recipients forceful instructions about what they must do, rather than advice about what they might do?; court?s analysis included identification of six ?decisive questions? relevant to ?spoliation cases involving litigation hold notices? including, when the duty to preserve arose, whether litigation holds were issued, when they were issued, what they said, how recipients responded and what further action was taken beyond the litigation holds to preserve evidence

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation Hold notices and survey to recipients regarding computer use

Family Wireless #1, LLC v. Auto. Techs., Inc., No. 3:15CV01310(JCH), 2016 WL 2930887 (D. Conn. May 19, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery from additional custodians (the parties had previously agreed to seven in total) where Plaintiff showed good cause to compel such searching upon establishing two custodians? involvement with a relevant committee and another?s regular contact with the franchisees and the issues in this case and where the court reasoned (among other things) that: ?The mere fact that many documents have already been produced is not sufficient to establish that there are no other relevant materials to be found.? and that ?It is reasonable to believe that discussions and transmissions of potentially relevant information could transpire below the highest echelon of management; indeed, as defendant acknowledged, some of the lower-level employees had direct communication with the franchisees regarding commissions.?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and unfair trade practices

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from additional custodians (“plaintiffs argue that the custodians should not be limited to decision-makers” and that lower level employees may also have relevant information)

Vaughan Co. v. Global Bio-Fules Tech. LLC, No. 1:12-CV-1292(DNH/DJS), 2016 WL 6605070 (N.D.N.Y. May 20, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

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

Bruner v. Amer. Honda Motor Corp., No. 1:15-00499-N, 2016 WL 2757401 (S.D. Ala. May 12, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where counsel for defendant indicated that relevant emails were not available because they were no longer retained in accordance with a document retention policy requiring the maintenance of emails for only 30 days and where no litigation hold was in place because Defendant was relying on its existing document retention policy because a litigation hold would be overly burdensome, court reasoned that ?the deletion of some responsive emails does not absolve Defendant of its obligation to thoroughly search for still-extant ESI? and ordered production of ?full and adequate responses to discovery? and also ordered Defendant to implement a litigation hold to preclude potential deletion of relevant information

Nature of Case: Claims arising from auto accident

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Boyington v Percheron Field Servs., LLC, No. 3:14-CV-90, 2016 WL 6068813 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 14, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Plaintiffs sought to compel production of all emails sent to or from any of the Plaintiffs through a Percheron account. The Court found the emails were relevant because they may shed light on informal work policies, hours worked, and serve as a potential cross-reference to the other records kept by Defendant. Analyzing proportionality, the Court concluded that the importance of the issues (to the Plaintiffs), the amount in controversy (alleged to be ?in excess of several million dollars?), the resources of the parties, the parties? relative access to the information and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues weighed in favor of Plaintiffs/production. Regarding whether the burden of discovery outweighed the benefit, the Court acknowledged Defendant?s claim that the review ?would likely cost $735,000-$798,964 and take a team of 20 attorneys 12 weeks to complete,? but reasoned that the Court?s refusal to compel production of certain email categories would lessen the estimated costs and that Defendant?s inability to provide certain data had caused Plaintiffs to have to ?puzzle together damages? and concluded that the request did not ?run afoul? of proportionality. The court also relied on Defendants prior agreement to produce the emails. Addressing Plaintiffs? motion to compel information regarding Defendant?s preservation efforts, the court ordered production of the names of those that received litigation holds and related information, but declined to order the litigation holds themselves.

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, Information re: litigation hold notices

Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Chemoil Corp., 15-2199, 2016 WL 9051173 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 19, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court denied Defendant?s motion to compel production of emails from Plaintiff?s former employee where Plaintiff?s initial production included some communications from the at-issue employee, where Plaintiff had already conducted a second search that did not yield additional documents, where the emails of the former employee had been moved off of active servers thus requiring the initiation of disaster recovery protocols to conduct an additional search, and where the emails of other parties to the potentially relevant communications remained on the active servers and had also been searched; court also noted that Defendant had deposed the former employee for 6 hours

Electronic Data Involved: Email of former employee

Perez v. Mueller, No. 13-C-13-2, 2016 WL 3360422 (E.D. Wis. May 27, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Defendants sought to compel discovery from the Secretary of the US Dept. of Labor, court found the proportionality factors in Rule 2(b)(1) ?easily tilt[ed] in favor of disclosure? reasoning that ?[t]he issues in this litigation are important from a public policy perspective, or at least they should be, lest the Secretary be engaging in years of unnecessary litigation at taxpayer expense? and also reasoning that the ?transaction at issue was for more than $13 million dollars? and that ?the federal government has unlimited resources? while Defendants were ?obviously financing their own defense.?

Nature of Case: ERISA

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Flowrider Surf, Ltd. v. Pacific Surf Designs, Inc., No. 15cv1879-BEN (BLM), 2016 WL 6522807 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

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)

Sky Med. Supply Inc. v. SCS Support Claim Serv. Inc., No. 12- 6383, 2016 WL 4703656 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Magistrate judge denied defendant?s motion to compel plaintiff to organize and label its document production ?so that it corresponds to the categories in the request? because the discovery documents were immediately available for inspection at plaintiff counsel?s office in electronic format already organized, identifiable, and searchable by claim number; defendants needing only to execute claims number searches to identify documents. Thus, the court concluded that unless and until an inspection is undertaken and shown to be unduly burdensome, the plaintiff?s offer to permit inspection of database comports with ?both the letter and spirit of rule 34.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Motion to Compel