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
Key Insight: Applying the proportionality factors in Rule 26(b)(1) (including specific contemplation of Defendants? ?corporate resources? and the ?potentially very large? amount in controversy) and reasoning that the Sixth Circuit has held that ?limiting the scope of discovery is appropriate when compliance ?would prove unduly burdensome,? not merely time-consuming or expensive? and that Defendants failed to propose an alternative method of discovery ?enabling some lesser degree of production,? the court directed the parties to cooperate and indicated it would schedule a conference to discuss ?whether and to what extent discovery should proceed in phases?
Nature of Case: Putative class action re: design or manufacturing defect
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where a magistrate judge found the requested inspection of Plaintiff?s devices was not proportional to the needs of the case ?especially? in light of Plaintiff?s privacy and confidentiality interests despite the production of thousands of text messages by Plaintiffs? mother (which Plaintiff confirmed she had sent to her for safekeeping) and alleged inconsistent testimony from the Plaintiff, the District Court Judge overruling Defendants? objections acknowledged the need for caution in allowing such inspections (including by citing the 2006 Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34) absent evidence of a responding party?s failure as to its discovery obligations or a ?substantiated connection? between the at-issue device and the claims of the case and concluded that neither had been established in the present case
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, text messages
Key Insight: In case where defendants estimated: (1) production costs for discovery from computers and smart phones would run $35,000 to $45,000 for uploading and processing of data, and (2) plaintiffs’ potential recovery as between $10,350 to $29,700, court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel finding that plaintiffs’ conduct was far more accommodating and professional than defendants’ and that production in Bates numbered .pdf format would not place undue burden on defendants
Nature of Case: Employment litigation
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails, texts
Key Insight: Court rejected plaintiff’s complaints regarding format of defendant’s production of documents, because plaintiff failed to make any Rule 34(b)(2)(B) ESI specification in its discovery requests and defendant’s production of scanned images on OCR readable disc was a reasonably usable form; court ordered defendant to explain its document naming and numbering system to the extent it had not already done so, but denied any additional logistical relief, stating: ?Whatever burden XL and its counsel face in reviewing these materials that they themselves have requested is rightfully borne by them.?
Nature of Case: Insurance coverage
Electronic Data Involved: Database of more than 808,000 documents consisting of more than four million pages
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
Key Insight: Magistrate judge denied as moot defendants’ request for plaintiffs’ consent to release emails stored with third party vendors Earthlink and AT&T in light of vendors? representations that, when an Earthlink.net or ATT.net user deletes an email from Outlook, the email simultaneously is deleted from the vendor’s server and cannot be recovered; magistrate judge also denied plaintiffs’ request for defendants to produce a merged data set, where one data set had 157 columns and was extracted from third-party provider?s system, and second set had more information but used different field identifiers, since a party cannot be compelled to create a document for its production and the creation of requested data compilation would inherently require the creation of a ?document,? and producing party is not required to produce ESI in more than one form
Nature of Case: Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act claims
Electronic Data Involved: Email, data
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for an order to show cause why the defendants should not be held in contempt for failing to all historical versions of source code for each cell phone model at issue, finding that magistrate judge’s discovery order did not preclude more than one reasonable interpretation of its scope, that defendants reasonably interpreted and substantially complied with the order by producing every version of the source code that they possessed
Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleged misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright infringement, violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, violation of California Penal Code ? 502, unfair competition, civil conspiracy to misappropriate trade secrets, and civil conspiracy to unfairly compete
Electronic Data Involved: Various versions of source code
Key Insight: Addressing Defendant?s claims that the emails of thirty-four employees previously identified by Defendant as potentially having responsive information were not reasonably accessible, the court indicated that Defendant?s declaration in support of that claim was ?of limited value? where it made only broad claims regarding the potential time it could take to search each computer but failed to account for the actual time taken to search the computers of the four primary adjusters for a prior production but acknowledged it was ?extremely difficult? to conclude that all thirty-four employees had ?significant, relevant discoverable emails or documents? and thus ordered the search and production of one custodian revealed in deposition to have been involved in the at-issue denial of coverage and that Plaintiff could choose 10 additional employees? computers to be searched based on Defendant?s court-ordered description of each employees? job and the type of documents they were likely to maintain
Nature of Case: Insurance litigation
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Key Insight: A clearly exasperated court described the parties’ discovery efforts to date, highlighted the inconsistencies/incompleteness in response, “as well as the complete cacophony of the San Joaquin County e-mail systems and retrieval,” and issued one final, specific order to be followed by defendant lest serious sanctions issue; among other things, court ordered defendant to perform computer-by-computer search for all current employees in order that any emails relating to plaintiff’s discrimination claims or job performance from 2007 to present may be produced, acknowledging that substantial work would be required for compliance but that judge was “not responsible for the County’s email systems which apparently have been designed for individual control and with no concern for litigation responsibilities”
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.