Key Insight: Court clarified discoverability of relevant social media content but indicated that disclosure of passwords was not required and not permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Electronic Data Involved: Social Media/social network (Facebook, etc.)
Key Insight: Plaintiff also sought production of all emails between 8 named individuals dating from August 1, 2013 to the present (December 2016). The court found the scope of this request (lacking any search terms or subject matter restrictions) was too burdensome when weighed against the potential benefit of production. Plaintiff narrowed her request to docs that related to her and limited the date range during oral argument, however the court found that this was still too broad and too close to the close of discovery to be permitted. Furthermore, Defendant had already produced emails relating to Plaintiff from most of the 8 custodians and had written to Plaintiff suggesting she propose search terms if she sought additional discovery. Plaintiff?s counsel, whose representation started after Defendant?s letter to Plaintiff, did not review Defendant?s earlier discovery responses and waited 10 months before requesting the additional discovery (using the overbroad parameters). The court denied Plaintiffs request except for certain documents referenced in depositions that were not produced. The court also denied Plaintiffs overly broad request for ?all documents pertaining to policies, procedures, and guidelines related to Defendant?s computers, computer systems, electronic data and electronic media? as too burdensome.
Nature of Case: Motion to Compel in employment discrimination action
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Defendant moved to compel Plaintiff to produce additional documents, supplement discovery responses, and remove non-responsive documents from their production. Plaintiff had not been able to obtain the entire underlying action file from former counsel, and argued they do not have actual control over the documents. The court found Plaintiffs did have ?possession, custody or control? of the file under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 (even though counsel had not been cooperative in turning the materials over) and granted Defendant?s motion to compel production of additional non-privileged and responsive documents. Plaintiffs were ordered to obtain the file and provide supplemental responses to Defendant?s RFPs. Defendant asserted Plaintiff?s previous production was a ?data dump? without an index (and contained numerous non-responsive documents), and did not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Plaintiffs contended that Defendant did not request a specific format and that they complied with the discovery order and produced their ESI in a proper format (PDF). Plaintiffs also claimed that Defendant?s request to have Plaintiff organize their production based on RFPs would be disproportionate – the production was in date order, allowing Defendant to ?organize, index and search the data at a low cost and with little effort.? The court agreed, finding the production adequate and cited the advisory committee?s notes for Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 (?contemplated that the parties requesting ESI would be able to organize it themselves?). Finally, the court denied Defendant?s motion for supplemented interrogatory responses, finding the Plaintiffs? responses adequate (the burden of finding the answer would be ?substantially the same for either party?).
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court declined to compel production of Plaintiff?s computer or to allow a third party to conduct an examination where Defendant?s request was ?not calculated to produce information relevant to Defendant?s arguments or the proportional needs of the case? and where the court reasoned that even if Defendant found what it was looking for, it would not change its legal position
Nature of Case: Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
Electronic Data Involved: Computer (for inspection)
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
Key Insight: Court denied Defendant?s motion to compel production of emails from Plaintiff?s former employee where Plaintiff?s initial production included some communications from the at-issue employee, where Plaintiff had already conducted a second search that did not yield additional documents, where the emails of the former employee had been moved off of active servers thus requiring the initiation of disaster recovery protocols to conduct an additional search, and where the emails of other parties to the potentially relevant communications remained on the active servers and had also been searched; court also noted that Defendant had deposed the former employee for 6 hours
Electronic Data Involved: Email of former employee
Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiff?s motion to compel a response to his second set of document requests (consisting of 168 pages and 1,027 individual requests), noting several procedural and ?substantive defects,? including that Plaintiff?s requests were ?grossly irrelevant? and sought ?numerous documents that ha[d] nothing to do with the claims or defenses? and disproportional to the case (citing Defendant?s prior production of approximately 1,000 pages of documents), even despite the ?strong federal policy against employment discrimination?; addressing defendant?s motion for sanctions, court concluded that ?Plaintiff?s Second Document Request was unquestionably prepared and served in bad faith and in a conscious effort to impose an unreasonable burden on defendants? and cited Plaintiff?s numerous document requests, violation of two prior discovery orders and other ?obstructive behavior? and granted a protective order relieving defendant of the obligation to respond and ordered that Plaintiff was prohibited from offering or using any document not already produced, that Plaintiff must submit to a medical exam (as was previously ordered) or suffer dismissal of his case, and that Plaintiff would be liable for the attorneys fees incurred by Defendants in addressing the motions resolved in this opinion
Nature of Case: Employment litigation (Title VII, Age Discrimination, ADA, etc.)
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Motion for protective order granted where requested information was not relevant to claims or defenses plead and thus was outside of the scope of discovery
Nature of Case: Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, database
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 non-party argued that subpoena exceeded scope of EEOC?s authority because it sought information irrelevant to the claim of sex discrimination (e.g., information re: race) and was unduly burdensome because it would take the single HR Officer approximately 500 hours to respond and take her away from other important work for the corporation, the court found that the information sought was relevant (reasoning that the standard of relevance is broad and ?generous? and that the information could ?shed light on possible discriminatory hiring practices and thereby, lead to the discovery of admissible evidence?) and that the burden did not outweigh the benefit, reasoning that ?[[o]ther than the fact that its employment records are kept in paper format in southern Illinois, [the non-party] has not provided any reason as to why its corporate human resources department cannot assist in responding to the subpoena or why it could not hire temporary staff to assist.?
Nature of Case: Employment litigation: sex discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.