Key Insight: inadequate search and production, misrepresentation, failure to supplement, follow-up, failure to disclose
Nature of Case: patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: email, board meeting minutes, investor presentations
Keywords: monetary sanctions, needless burden, late disclosures, post-settlement order, misrepresentation, motion to show cause
Key Insight: Among other things, court denied motion for protective order upon finding that Plaintiffs were ?entitled to obtain basic information sufficient to determine whether searches were reasonably conducted and the results properly verified? even without ?evidence that specific documents were destroyed or withheld? and reasoned that ?the fact that [Defendant?s] attorney(s) conducted or supervised the searches does not protect such non-privileged information from disclosure?
Electronic Data Involved: Information re: efforts to preserve, search
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
Key Insight: Where an initial search of file names on a legacy drive (as opposed to the contents of the drive) did not identify ten responsive documents that were eventually produced after the close of discovery and a mere 7 days prior to trial, the court found that the search was an unreasonable inquiry under Rule 26(g) citing counsel?s failure to guide or monitor the employee conducting the search; the at-issue employee?s lack of experience conducting searches of large document repositories and the failure of counsel to ask the IT department to assist; and the objective unreasonableness of the search in light of the initial failure to search within the contents of the legacy drive and imposed monetary sanctions to address Plaintiff?s increased efforts as a result of the failure to timely produce the documents but reduced the award by 1/3 where Plaintiff would have had to expend some of the at-issue resources regardless and where Plaintiff failed to follow up when the employee who conducted the search indicated he did not know if he had searched within the files themselves
Electronic Data Involved: ESI from legacy drive
Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought production of specific folders from e-mail inboxes after defendant had already produced e-mails from those custodians as identified by keyword search terms r, the court found the request duplicative and denied plaintiff?s request. Where plaintiff sought to compel additional searches likely to capture information well beyond that to which plaintiff was entitled and resisted a compromise offer of running the searches with restrictive terms designed to weed out irrelevant information, the court granted the request for additional searches but also granted defendant?s request to include limiting terms to restrict the capture of irrelevant data. Where plaintiff requested a sworn affidavit detailing defendant?s litigation hold efforts including the ?specific actions? which hold notice recipients were directed to take and any enforcement efforts, the court agreed with defendant that specific actions and enforcement efforts were subject to attorney-client privilege but directed plaintiff to ?provide this information via ?sworn affidavit? in a manner which, does not invoke the work product doctrine or violate the attorney-client privilege OR to make a specific legal and factual showing [] as to any work product objection or attorney-client privilege claim? and also ordered production of the other requested information, including custodian names and document types subject to the hold.
Nature of Case: Professional Negligence
Electronic Data Involved: e-mail
Key Insight: Court granted in part Plaintiffs? motion to compel additional searching in two previously excluded timeframes, denying the motion as to documents generated at a time in which ?nothing of significance was happening? as indicated by Defendants and because the cost and burden of the requested discovery would violate the rule of proportionality but granting the motion as to information created after the filing of the complaint, where the court rejected Defendants? claim that nothing created after that time could have possibly been relevant and noted that Defendants failed to present any specific argument about undue burden, apart from having disassembled their review teams
Nature of Case: Breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: ESI from previously unsearched timeframes
Key Insight: Court declined to compel Defendant to conduct additional searches of witnesses? email accounts using 88 new search terms and excluding Plaintiff?s name finding that the request was ?overly broad and not proportional to the case? and reasoning that Plaintiff relied upon a multi-plaintiff case to justify her position and that she had not provided specifics regarding what she reasonably expected to find or shown that the information could not be found through other means, such as by asking additional questions of witnesses already scheduled for deposition ; court ordered Defendant to produce the relevant policies it operated under where Defendant claimed emails were deleted in the ordinary course of business according to Company policy, and that Defendant should also provide Plaintiff with the date of the deletion and the name of the person who made the deletion or the process of deletion, if known
Nature of Case: Wrongful termination
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Court found defense counsel had committed two violations of Rule 26(g)?s obligation to conduct a reasonable inquiry where counsel simply provided discovery requests to Defendant?s HR manager who conducted an independent, but ultimately inadequate, search for responsive information and failed to properly supervise the search, involve the IT Department (a best practice, according to the court), or follow up to ensure the search was adequate. Discussing the lack of a ?reasonable inquiry,? the court instructed that a non-lawyer will typically require more guidance than merely providing the requests at-issue and noted that ?attorneys have a post-investigation obligation to make sure all responsive information is provided.? Court ordered counsel to pay the reasonable expenses and fees associated with the motion for sanctions and for Defendant to pay $1000 but declined further sanctions where Defendant supplemented its response to discovery when additional responsive information was located.
Nature of Case: Claims arising from an industrial accident
Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI
Key Insight: Court affirmed order of Magistrate Judge declining request for additional discovery based on Defendant?s alleged violation of the parties? protocol for discovery. Where parties agreed that each would disclose the eight custodians ?most likely? to have discoverable ESI, Plaintiff claimed that Defendant failed to name its VP of North American sales in a ?systematic and pervasive effort? to prevent the disclosure of discoverable documents. Magistrate Judge reasoned that Plaintiff needed to explain why its proposed custodians were better than those identified by Defendant and permitted Plaintiff to conduct a test search at its expense, which uncovered few additional documents. Magistrate Judge held that absent a showing that Defendant violated the protocol, it should be enforced, noting that ?for good or ill? Plaintiff had agreed to limit the searches. Affirming the order, the District Court noted that the protocol required the identification of custodians ?most likely? to have discoverable information (describing the ?before-the-fact perspective?) and not the custodians that IN FACT had the most discoverable ESI and also that Plaintiff had failed to take up the Magistrate Judge?s invitation to provide additional search terms for the test, which may have identified additional information to bolster their position
Nature of Case: Patent Infringement
Electronic Data Involved: ESI from 8 custodians “most likely” to have responsive information
Key Insight: Where counsel for defendant indicated that relevant emails were not available because they were no longer retained in accordance with a document retention policy requiring the maintenance of emails for only 30 days and where no litigation hold was in place because Defendant was relying on its existing document retention policy because a litigation hold would be overly burdensome, court reasoned that ?the deletion of some responsive emails does not absolve Defendant of its obligation to thoroughly search for still-extant ESI? and ordered production of ?full and adequate responses to discovery? and also ordered Defendant to implement a litigation hold to preclude potential deletion of relevant information
Nature of Case: Claims arising from auto accident
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.