Search Results for “proportionality” – Page 8

In re Disposable Contact Lens AntiTrust Litig., No. 3:15-md-2626-J-20JRK, 2016 WL 6518660 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where the ?potential relevance? of the information sought was ?essentially undisputed,? but where Defendant claimed to have already spent $700,000 on discovery and that the request for 18 additional custodians could result in an expenditure of at least $1.5 million, court noted that the parties? dispute was essentially a question of proportionality and concluded a that two additional ?upper-management custodians? were warranted (as opposed to the seven requested) and also found that a sample of four sales manages was appropriate (as opposed to the eleven requested); as to Class Plaintiffs? request for a ?hit list? generated by applying the agreed-upon search terms to the collected materials, the court reasoned that in light of the number of custodians and the parties? agreement as to search terms, such a list seemed ?less valuable that it might otherwise be,? but ordered that if one was automatically generated, it should be produced

Nature of Case: Class Action

Electronic Data Involved: Additional Custodians

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

Carlson v. Jarousek, No. 2-15-1248, 20167243557 (Ill. App. Ct. Dec. 21, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: In personal injury case, the trial court abused its discretion by ordering forensic imaging of ALL of Plaintiff?s devices, including his work computer which was owned by his employer, where, among other things, the appellate court determined that such a request ran ?counter to the traditional protocol of discovery, in which one party requests specific information and the other party searches its own files (and computers) to identify and produce responsive information?; where the computer was not directly involved in the cause of action; where there was no evidence of prior discovery violations; and where ?careful consideration of relevance and proportionality reveal[ed] that forensic imaging was not justified in this case? including because there were ?ample? alternative avenues for discovery (e.g, requests for admission, depositions) and because much of the information sought fell within the categories of ESI identified in Illinois to be presumptively not discoverable; the court also addressed Plaintiff?s privacy concerns

Nature of Case: Personal injury (appeal)

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic imaging of computers (including work computer)

Yeti Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC, No. A-15-CV-597-RP, 2016 WL 6916944 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 11, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Defendant resisted searching certain emails arguing undue burden and that it was unlikely that responsive emails would be found but where no evidence of burden was submitted, where not even a cursory search of the emails was undertaken and where there were examples of the sorts of email sought produced from other employees, the court ordered Defendant to conduct the requested search; similarly, where Defendant offered no evidence of the alleged burden to review and produce the at-issue call recordings, where Plaintiff offered to bear the full cost of transcribing the messages, and where the court determined that the likelihood that the calls would be privileged was low, the court ordered Defendant to produce the raw audiofiles of its customer service calls and voicemail; notably, at the outset of its analysis the court noted that at least 10 attorneys had appeared for each party and that it was ?apparent that the issues at stake are significant,? including posing an ?existential risk? to Defendant and therefore concluded that ?any proportionality argument has a high bar to clear to be successful?

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Customer service emails, call recordings

Nelson v Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. 13-cv-607 (SRN/SER), 2016 WL 6917205 (D. Minn. May 13, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Relying on Plaintiffs? delay in raising its problems with discover and the principle of proportionality, particularly ?the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues and whether the burden of production outweighs the discovery?s likely benefits,? the court denied Plaintiff?s motion to compel additional pre-certification discovery; court?s analysis included rejection of proposed sampling where it was clear that ?sampling would be the beginning rather than the end, of this issue? and because of Plaintiffs? delay in making the suggestions (?But this type of proposal should lead to meaningful conversations during discovery, not at the end of it.?; ?To attempt to begin negotiations about discovery at the end of the discovery period demonstrates at best a lack of diligence and at worst a lack of respect for the Court?s scheduling order.)

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: Database, email

In re Fluoroquinolone Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL. No. 15-2642 (JRT), 2016 WL 4045414 (D. Minn. July 20, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court ruled that defendants may, under the proportionality factors in 26(b)(1), limit their search to databases and central repositories rather than engage in custodial searches for all cases at the Defendant Fact Sheet (DFS) stage of the MDL due to the ?significant burden of the proposed custodial-file searches? and the less-than-certain benefits of such searches.? The Court noted Defendant?s acknowledgement that custodial searches would likely be ?warranted for a narrower group of cases at a later stage? and that plaintiffs were free to seek permission to engage in further discovery if information available in the structured databases was insufficient.

Nature of Case: Products Liability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Court Finds Foreign Discovery “Marginally Relevant” and “Not Proportional,” Declines to Compel Search

Nov 21 2016

In re Bard IVC Filters Prod. Liab. Litig., —F.R.D.—, 2016 WL 4943393 (D. Ariz. Sept. 16, 2016)

In this case, the parties disagreed on the discoverability of communications between Defendants’ foreign subsidiaries and divisions and foreign regulators regarding the filters at issue in the case. Following analysis of the effects of the December 1, 2015 amendments on Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and of the specific facts of the case, US District Court Judge David Campbell—Chair of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure—determined that the at-issue communications were “only marginally relevant” and was persuaded that “the burden of [the] foreign discovery would be substantial.” Thus, the court concluded that Defendants were not required to search their foreign entities for communications with foreign regulators.

Court Finds “Rather Broad” Request to be Proportional Upon Factor-by-Factor Analysis

Oct 04 2016

First Niagara Risk Mgmt., Inc. v. Folino, —F.R.D.—, 2016 WL 4247654 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2016)

In this case, the court addressed the parties’ disagreement regarding a proper scope of discovery and Plaintiff’s related motion to compel the search of Defendant’s electronic devices, to be conducted by an independent e-Discovery vendor utilizing search terms proposed by the plaintiff. Upon finding the requested information relevant and following consideration of each of the proportionality factors identified in recently amended Rule 26(b)(1), the court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel.

In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation (District of Arizona, 2016)

Sep 16 2016

Key Insight: proportionality with regards to relevancy

Nature of Case: Products Liability

Electronic Data Involved: Communications between foreign entities that sell the product and foreign regulatory bodies regarding the products

Keywords: Proportionality, marginally relevant, relevancy

View Case Opinion

First Niagara Risk Management, Inc. v. Folino, No. 16-1779 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2016).

Aug 11 2016

Key Insight: Responding party’s ability to choose search methods is not above rule of proportionality.

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty Action

Electronic Data Involved: Personal and business electronic devices

Keywords: “search criteria” “access[ability]” “uncovered evidence” “limit[ing] searches” “shielding” “Sedona”

View Case Opinion

Search Results For -proportionality