Relevance – Electronic Discovery Law

America West Bank Members v. State of Utah (D. Utah 2021)

Nov 10 2021

Key Insight: Plaintiff filed a motion to compel after learning through the discovery process that defendants purged or lost emails and documents. Plaintiff sought “discovery on discovery” to discern the identities of individuals whose emails would have been responsive if those emails were still available, the identification of documents or categories of documents no longer available, and an explanation as to why other responsive documents were not produced. The court granted plaintiff’s request but found it “strictly limited to the purged former employee email accounts.” No additional depositions were permitted and plaintiff’s fourteen interrogatories on this topic were “neither reasonable nor proportional” to the limited nature of the discovery needed.

Nature of Case: Civil rights

Electronic Data Involved: Email and documents

Case Summary

O’Donnell/Salvatori Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (W.D. Wash. 2021)

Oct 01 2021

Key Insight: Plaintiff moved the court to compel defendant to produce all non-privileged documents hitting on the agreed ESI search terms, regardless of whether they were relevant to a claim or defense in the case. Defendant had conducted a relevance review and withheld emails, such as employees joining or leaving the team, technical issues, and buying a new boat. The court denied plaintiff’s motion, finding that although there is little case law on the issue, “the courts that have addressed it have almost uniformly found that a relevance review, and the withholding of irrelevant documents, is appropriate.” Thus, the court ultimately held that “a party’s agreement to run search terms does not waive its right to review the resulting documents for relevance so long as the review can be done in a reasonably timely manner.”

Nature of Case: Copyright Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Case Summary

Doe v. Purdue University (N.D. Ind. July 2, 2021)

Jul 07 2021

Key Insight: Defendants filed a motion for spoliation of evidence and sanctions after plaintiff failed to provide Snapchat data consistent with the parties’ joint stipulation and prior court orders, and deleted certain Snapchat files that were subject to the stipulation and orders. Plaintiff admitted he had deleted some files from his “memories” folder in Snapchat, but claimed they were irrelevant, and he did so to free up memory on his phone. The court found plaintiff was under a duty to preserve the Snapchat data and he breached that duty when he destroyed the data. Without the deleted files and believing plaintiff’s claim that he deleted the files to free up space and memory on his phone, the court could not find that plaintiff did so with the purpose of hiding adverse information and declined to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. The court imposed monetary sanctions and ordered plaintiff to pay defendants’ attorney’s fees and costs associated with litigating the motion, and allowed defendants to introduce a limited jury instruction regarding the destruction of ESI.

Nature of Case: Civil Rights

Electronic Data Involved: Snapchat data

Case Summary

Aviles v. S&P Global, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2021)

May 24 2021

Key Insight: Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel to allow them unfettered access to all information located on a server. Defendant objected, claiming that Plaintiffs had no legal right to the server, and information on the server was irrelevant, confidential and/or privileged. The Court found that the request (Motion to Compel) was overbroad and premature, and denied Plaintiffs’ Motion.

Nature of Case:Fraud, Shareholder Suit, Diversity Jurisdiction

Electronic Data Involved: Hard Drive, Server,

Case Summary

Matter of the Complaint of Paradise Family (M.D. Fla. 2021)

Apr 28 2021

Key Insight: Plaintiff’s social media account information (Facebook and Instagram) is relevant and proportional to his alleged damages for loss of the capacity to enjoy life. Social media is not privileged or protected by any right of privacy.

Nature of Case: Admiralty

Electronic Data Involved: Social Media

Case Summary

Hurley v. BMW of N. Am. LLC (E.D. Pa. Apr. 27, 2021)

Apr 27 2021

Key Insight: The three categories of documents sought by Plaintiff are relevant to the litigation. Further, production of the three categories of documents would not be disproportionate to the needs of the litigation. Production of the documents, which had already been digitized and indexed (and produced) for previous litigation, would be of little expense and/or burden to Defendant. The burden and/or expense of producing the documents do not outweigh the likely benefits of production.

Nature of Case: Product Defects

Electronic Data Involved: Digitized and indexed manuals and other documents

Case Summary

Abedin v. Palominos Osorio (N.Y.A.D. Nov. 12, 2020)

Nov 12 2020

Key Insight: The court granted defendant’s motion to compel the minor plaintiff to sign authorizations to obtain her social media information. “[D]efendant demonstrated that records from [plaintiff’s] Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram accounts were ‘reasonably likely to yield relevant evidence.’” The ESI was relevant to alleged emotional and mental trauma plaintiff suffered as a result of the accident as evidenced by her social isolation and withdrawal.

Nature of Case: Personal injuries

Electronic Data Involved: Social media

Case Summary

In re: 3M Combat Arms Earplug Prods. Liab. Litig. (N.D. Fla., Oct. 2020)

Key Insight: In their discovery requests, Defendants sought data concerning the Plaintiff’s use of social media and text messages concerning matters relevant to the litigation. After Plaintiff provided responses to these discovery requests, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff to submit to a forensic examination of his mobile phone. Defendants based their Motion on the arguments of ensuring complete collection of data from the mobile phone, and more specifically, complete data of Plaintiff’s use of social media messaging and text messaging with several parties on said mobile phone.

The Court denied Defendants’ Motion because it found that the electronic stored information (ESI) already produced was complete and/or sufficient due to the Plaintiff already working with an ESI expert to obtain the requested data, particularly from the mobile device. In short, the Defendants’ lacked a sufficient reason to believe that the data already produced was not complete.

Similarly, the Defendants failed to demonstrate that a forensic examination of the mobile device would produce relevant data showing that Plaintiff had a pattern or practice of deleting the above mentioned messages. Moreover, the data produced by the examination would only show that a message was deleted, not when or why the message(s) were deleted, the contents of the message(s), or a pattern of deleting messages. In sum, the Court found that the requested forensic examination would be “disproportionate to the slight importance” it would provide to the litigation.

Nature of Case: Product Liability

Electronic Data Involved: Cellular Phone, Text Messages, Social Media, Social Media Messages,

Case Summary

Murray v. City of Warren (E.D. Mich. 2020)

Aug 17 2020

Key Insight: The court agreed that plaintiff’s request for “all emails” from three custodians was overly broad and narrowed it to relevant search terms relating to plaintiff’s allegations of harassment. The court also relied on its prior ruling, directing the parties to confer regarding the search terms and if the parties cannot agree on appropriately limited search terms, they will share the cost of retaining an expert to assist them. If they still cannot agree, plaintiff can renew his motion and provide the court with an expert report substantiating his position.

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email, Personnel files

Case Summary

Crossman v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC, (M.D. Fla. May 4, 2020)

May 04 2020

Key Insight: Defendant moved to compel social media discovery from plaintiff. The court considered plaintiff’s objections based on relevancy, privacy, and vagueness. Plaintiff did not assert a proportionality argument. The court found that the discovery was relevant – “common sense dictates that information in [plaintiff’s] social medial . . . relates to her contemporaneous mental and emotional states and therefore relates to the injuries she claims she suffered at the hands of [defendant], including loss of enjoyment of life.” As to privacy, a confidentiality agreement suffices to protect plaintiff’s interests. As to vagueness, plaintiff’s counsel can “reasonably and naturally” interpret the requests in view of the claims and defenses through communication with opposing counsel. Lastly, an award of expenses was unwarranted since “reasonable minds can differ on the dispute.”

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Social Media

Case Summary

Tag:Relevance