Tag: Adequacy of Search/Identification or Collection

1
Balderas v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 8, 2021)
2
3
Berg v. M & F Western Products, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2020)
4
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. M1 5100 Corp., d/b/a Jumbo Supermarket, Inc. (S.D. Fl. , 2020)
5
Optronic Techs., Inc. v. Ningbo Sunny Elec. Co. (N.D. Cal., 2020)
6
Simpson v. J.L. Guess et al. (Middle District of Florida, 2020)
7
Shelton v. Fast Advance Funding, LLC (3rd Circuit, 2020)
8
Grande v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al (Western District of Washington, 2020)
9
White v. Relay Res. & Gen. Servs. Admin. (United States District Court, W.D. Washington, 2020)
10
Center for Auto Safety et al. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Arizona Court of Appeals, 2019)

Balderas v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 8, 2021)

Key Insight:

Further discovery must be based on more than mere speculation or suspicion that additional documents exist. The moving party must make a case showing “it can be reasonably deduced that other documents exist[.]”

The Court was unable to reach a ruling regarding Plaintiff’s requested search terms due to insufficient information. While Defendants did reject the terms and did not provide alternatives, plaintiff did not say what the requested terms were or why they were rejected.

With regards to specific discovery requests, Defendants were ordered to search for and produce responsive documents. The Court noted “boilerplate” objections without further explanation are equivalent to making no objection at all and individual authorization to access electronic communications is not required when the individuals are parties to the case. Additionally, emails and texts messages party’s employee are a compelling form of evidence that can be particularly significant in litigation.

Nature of Case: Civil Rights, Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Personnel Records, Business Records, Electronic Communications, Email, Texts, Voicemails, Instant Messages, Electronic Documents Generally

Case Summary

Key Insight: Court rejected additional discovery based off proportionality and discovery already produced. There was no additional proof of unproduced, relevant texts.

Electronic Data Involved: Text Messages

Keywords: additional discovery, proportionality

Berg v. M & F Western Products, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2020)

Key Insight: Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff that was granted by the Court. The Court ordered Plaintiff to conduct a full search of all documents in hard and electronic formats conduct, including but not limited to all data on social media platforms, demand letters issued by Plaintiff or his counsel to third parties referencing this case, documents and materials of Plaintiff’s company, and documents and materials related to the litigation that are in the custody and control of Plaintiff’s current or prior lawyers. The Motion’s request(s) that Plaintiff be compelled to attend his deposition and testify at trial in-person were denied.

Nature of Case: Copyright Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Social Media, Electronic Documents

Case Summary

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. M1 5100 Corp., d/b/a Jumbo Supermarket, Inc. (S.D. Fl. , 2020)

Key Insight: Defendant “self-collected” without involvement of counsel. Court gave defendant one last chance to produce as 5 months remained in discovery, with active involvement of counsel.

Nature of Case: Age discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Various ESI

Keywords: certification, party collection

View Case Opinion

Optronic Techs., Inc. v. Ningbo Sunny Elec. Co. (N.D. Cal., 2020)

Key Insight: Counsel must be involved with discovery to certify process followed. Counsel’s lack of involvement warranted sanctions in this case.

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Various ESI

Keywords: sanctions, certification

View Case Opinion

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

Shelton v. Fast Advance Funding, LLC (3rd Circuit, 2020)

Key Insight: defendant argued that it had no obligation to respond to timely discovery requests because the due date of the discovery was after the discovery deadline.

Nature of Case: telemarketing violation

Electronic Data Involved: requests for admission

Keywords: discovery deadline, requests for admission

View Case Opinion

Grande v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al (Western District of Washington, 2020)

Key Insight: Defendants here have not described any harm that would result from producing the guidelines and have not sought a protective order, the Court declines to find the documents so confidential that they cannot be produced

Nature of Case: bad faith and fraudulent banking

Electronic Data Involved: general discovery responses, voicemails, loan documents, loan history, and communications

Keywords: fraud, trade secrets, incomplete responses, bad faith

View Case Opinion

White v. Relay Res. & Gen. Servs. Admin. (United States District Court, W.D. Washington, 2020)

Key Insight: good faith effort, a reasonable effort to respond must be made, obstructive and dilatory

Nature of Case: employment discrimination

Keywords: vague broad objections, Failing to fully investigate the case is not an excuse from making initial disclosures

View Case Opinion

Center for Auto Safety et al. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Arizona Court of Appeals, 2019)

Key Insight: defendants perpetrated fraud and acted in bad faith when not disclosing test results of defective product

Nature of Case: product liability

Electronic Data Involved: product test results that were not disclosed

Keywords: fraud, bad faith, disclosure, confidentiality

Identified Local Court Rule(s): Maricopa county local practice rule 2.19, 5.4

Identified State Rule(s): 26(c)(1), 26(c)(1)(G), 26(c)(4)(A)

View Case Opinion

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