Tag:Custodians

1
Electronic Discovery Institute Article – “The New e-Discovery Wild West: Slack, Teams, Zoom, and Other Collaboration Technologies”
2
K&L Gates Arbitration World Podcast: Virtual Collaboration Tools and their e-Discovery Implications in Arbitration and Litigation
3
Edwards v. McDermott Int’l, Inc. (S.D. Tex. 2022)
4
Orchestrate HR, Inc. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc. (D. Kan. 2022)
5
Cary v. Ne. Ill. Reg’l Commuter R.R. Corp. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 22, 2021)

Electronic Discovery Institute Article – “The New e-Discovery Wild West: Slack, Teams, Zoom, and Other Collaboration Technologies”

The pandemic has spawned many new and exciting innovations, but many of those innovations have also created new risks.  One such risk — and often a very material one — is that employees working at home have created a new “Wild West” of e-discovery and data storage, where pandemic pioneers working in their homestead offices may have inadvertently escaped the well-controlled data storage environment in place in their workplace.

Read More

K&L Gates Arbitration World Podcast: Virtual Collaboration Tools and their e-Discovery Implications in Arbitration and Litigation

In a recent K&L Gates Arbitration World podcast, Julie Anne Halter (a partner in our Seattle office and co-chair of our e-Discovery Analysis & Technology (“e-DAT”) practice group) and Martin King (a partner in our London office who focuses on international arbitration and complex commercial litigation and disputes) discussed virtual collaboration tools like Slack and Microsoft Teams and the e-discovery challenges, opportunities, and pitfalls these tools may present in the context of arbitration and litigation

Edwards v. McDermott Int’l, Inc. (S.D. Tex. 2022)

Key Insight: The court was required to balance the proportionality factors to determine whether plaintiff’s proposed search terms that would require defendants to review 1.3 million documents were proportional to the needs of the case or if defendants’ proposal to review half as many documents was more proportional. In applying the proportionality factors, the court found it a “close call” but granted the motion in plaintiff’s favor, ordering defendants to apply plaintiff’s proposed search terms and to begin review of the documents and produce them on a rolling basis.

Nature of Case: Securities Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Case Summary

Orchestrate HR, Inc. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc. (D. Kan. 2022)

Key Insight: The Magistrate denied defendant’s motion to add plaintiffs outside counsel as a list of documents custodians for ESI discovery purposes. The court noted that relatively little legal authority exists on the standards to apply when parties cannot agree on designated ESI custodians. Relying on the limited legal authority and The Sedona Principles, the court noted as follows: (1) determining what is relevant and proportional is a highly fact-specific inquiry; (2) absent agreement among the parties, the party responding to discovery requests is entitled to select the custodians it deems most likely to possess responsive information; (3) unless the party’s choice is unreasonable or results in a deficient production, the court should not dictate ESI custodians; and (4) the party seeking to compel the designation of a particular custodian has the initial burden to show that the disputed custodian’s ESI is relevant to the claims or defenses.

Nature of Case: Tort Claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Case Summary

Cary v. Ne. Ill. Reg’l Commuter R.R. Corp. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 22, 2021)

Key Insight: Court granted, in large part, plaintiff’s motion to compel ESI, requiring defendant to disclose data sources that may contain relevant ESI and refused to impose an “arbitrary limit of five or seven custodians” requested by defendants given the number of people identified as having potentially relevant information in their initial disclosures. The court urged the parties to agree upon search terms to less the burden of ESI searches and revisit an agreed time period in light of the court’s memorandum and order, rather than take “absolute line-in-the-sand positions” (citing Standing Order Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information at Principle 1.02 (Cooperation)). The court denied plaintiff’s request to produce the entire contents of her work email, finding the blanket request overbroad on its face.

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Case Summary

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