Search Results For -proportionality

1
Lawson v. Spirit Aerosystems, Inc. (D. Kan. June 18, 2020)
2
Crossman v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC, (M.D. Fla. May 4, 2020)
3
Simpson v. J.L. Guess et al. (Middle District of Florida, 2020)
4
Digital Mentor, Inc. v. Ovivo USA, LLC (Western District of Washington, 2020)
5
Lawson v. Love?s Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-1266 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2019)
6
County of Cook v. Bank of America Corp. (N.D. Ill., 2019)
7
Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors LLC (Southern District of California, 2019)
8
Swift Beef Co. v. Alex Lee, Inc., No. 18-0105-EFM-KGG (D. Kan. Oct. 31, 2018)
9
Updateme Inc. v. Axel Springer SE, No. 17-cv-05054-SI (LB) (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2018)
10
Garrett v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees, No. 17-cv-2874-T-23AAS (M.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2018)

Lawson v. Spirit Aerosystems, Inc. (D. Kan. June 18, 2020)

Key Insight: Cost shifting of the TAR costs to Plaintiff was warranted based on an analysis of the proportionality factors. Plaintiff was warned to narrow his discovery multiple times, continued to demand overbroad criteria for TAR, was aware of the potential costs of TAR, and was aware the discovery he sought led to largely non-responsive documents. Moreover, Defendant produced responsive documents by conducting its own search and production of documents outside of the TAR process.

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract, Non-Compete

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic Documents Generally

Case Summary

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

Simpson v. J.L. Guess et al. (Middle District of Florida, 2020)

Key Insight: Proportionality need for records not related to the claim; Relevance; Access to records; Parties resources; Whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs it’s likely benefit

Nature of Case: Prisoner Pro Se – Unconstitutional use of excessive force by corrections officers

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy (discipline records/ Mail logs); collection

Keywords: Compel; Sanctions; Declaration of counsel; Malicious and sadistic purpose to inflict harm; State of Mind; Veracity; narrowed requests; meet and confer;

View Case Opinion

Digital Mentor, Inc. v. Ovivo USA, LLC (Western District of Washington, 2020)

Key Insight: Failure to produce; Sanctions; Proportionality

Nature of Case: Trademark & Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy; correspondence; email

Keywords: “Functional employee”; Consultant; Third-party communications; Privilege; Spoliation; Unfair prejudice; Attorney’s fees and costs; Proportionality; Access/Resources;

View Case Opinion

Lawson v. Love?s Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-1266 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2019)

Key Insight: Request for text message production by Plaintiffs was considered too broad, but court allowed for modification to more narrowly tailored request.

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act

Electronic Data Involved: text messages

Keywords: Texts; proportionality

View Case Opinion

County of Cook v. Bank of America Corp. (N.D. Ill., 2019)

Key Insight: Absolute perfection is not a goal of the discovery process. The county’s claim of burden is unsubstantiated, there is no burden claimed but for ESI privilege review. The burden does not outweigh the proportionality here.

Nature of Case: Fair Housing Act violations

Electronic Data Involved: ESI information concerning mortgage, marketing, etc

Keywords: Proportionality, TAR, burden

View Case Opinion

Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors LLC (Southern District of California, 2019)

Key Insight: Requests for Production; marketing materials; Unreasonably cumulative or duplicative

Nature of Case: Trademark Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy; Historical records; on-site inspection; Marketing materials (documents, recordings, video, displays, etc.)

Keywords: Discovery violations; adequacy of discovery responses; Vague/overbroad/burdensome/ not calculated to lead to discovery of documents relevant to claims or defenses; proportionality; access; costs/Attorney’s fees; resources; “Senior user”; Cherrypicking; Evidentiary preclusion; Court order; Representative samples

View Case Opinion

Swift Beef Co. v. Alex Lee, Inc., No. 18-0105-EFM-KGG (D. Kan. Oct. 31, 2018)

Key Insight: relevance, proportionality, undue burden, relative access

Nature of Case: contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: sweeping document request

Keywords: motion to quash, defunct entity, third party subpoena

View Case Opinion

Updateme Inc. v. Axel Springer SE, No. 17-cv-05054-SI (LB) (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2018)

Key Insight: proportionality, undue burden, ESI protocol terms, privilege

Nature of Case: trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: electronic records

Keywords: random sample, random sampling, responsiveness, responsive documents

View Case Opinion

Garrett v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees, No. 17-cv-2874-T-23AAS (M.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2018)

Key Insight: cost-shifting, proportionality

Nature of Case: Title IX violation

Electronic Data Involved: computer, cell phone, text messages

Keywords: privacy interests, forensic examination, attorney’s fees and costs, inconsistent testimony

View Case Opinion

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.