FRCP 26(b)(1) Scope in General (effective Dec. 1, 2015) – Page 2

TetraVue, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., No. 14cv2021-W (BLM), 2017 WL 1008788 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

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

Brand Servs., LLC v. Irex Corp., NO: 15-5712, 2017 WL 67517 (E.D. La. Jan. 5, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: Plaintiff filed motion to compel the production of all computers or a forensic image of such computers of three former employees currently employed by Defendant. Plaintiff accused one employee, an informational technology specialist, of transferring files containing trade secrets and proprietary information to an external hard drive and later to his laptop furnished by Defendant. Plaintiff also sought the production of a forensic image of Defendant?s server. Defendant argued that direct investigation of these devices was too broad a scope and should be limited by an ?electronically stored information protocol.? The Court agreed that Plaintiff?s request was overly broad and disproportional and ordered both parties to submit a draft ESI protocol using key word searches so as to control costs and to keep discovery proportional to the needs of the case.

Nature of Case: Violation of non-compete agreement, Uniform Trade Secrets Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

View Case Opinion

William C. Blosser v. Ashcroft, Inc., No. C17-5243-BHS, 2017 WL 4168502 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 19, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: Where Defendant contended there was only one way to search the at-issue database but failed to explain why and where Plaintiffs noted Defendant?s failure to offer reasons why optical character recognition could not be used on the database, the court ?agree[d],? reasoning that parties might otherwise be encouraged to ?maintain inaccessible databases to limit their discovery obligations? and noted that Defendant may need to consult a third party vendor if necessary and ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding the issue

Nature of Case: Asbestos exposure liability

Electronic Data Involved: Database

View Case Opinion

Mid. Am. Sols. LLC v. Vantiv, Inc., No. 1:16-mc-2, 2016 WL 1611381 (S.D. Ohio April 4, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of at-issue data in ?condensed format? where Plaintiff originally requested and was provided with the data in it its ?original and unaltered format? and where the requested re-production was not proportional to the needs of the case because relevant evidence had already been provided; Court denied request for inspection to test accuracy of data produced where Plaintiff had not yet taken full advantage of the data in hand (by failing to take advantage of certain Excel functions) and thus had no basis for questioning the accuracy, thus rendering an inspection out of proportion to the needs of the case

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraud and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Perez v. Mueller, No. 13-C-13-2, 2016 WL 3360422 (E.D. Wis. May 27, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Defendants sought to compel discovery from the Secretary of the US Dept. of Labor, court found the proportionality factors in Rule 2(b)(1) ?easily tilt[ed] in favor of disclosure? reasoning that ?[t]he issues in this litigation are important from a public policy perspective, or at least they should be, lest the Secretary be engaging in years of unnecessary litigation at taxpayer expense? and also reasoning that the ?transaction at issue was for more than $13 million dollars? and that ?the federal government has unlimited resources? while Defendants were ?obviously financing their own defense.?

Nature of Case: ERISA

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Sharma v. BMW N. Amer. LLC, No. 13-cv-02274-MMC (KAW), 2016 WL 1019668 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court compelled production of requested document retention policies where it determined that the policies were relevant and ?may help Plaintiffs to determine the universe of responsive documents and evaluate any gaps in document production? and that the production was proportional to the needs of the case where the modest number of pages at issue rendered the burden of production ?likely minimal, while the benefit of such information would be substantial?

Nature of Case: Putative class action re: allegedly defective vehicles

Electronic Data Involved: Document retention policies

Duhigg v. Goodwill Indus., No. 8:15CV91, 2016 WL 4991480 (D. Neb. Sept. 16, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiff?s motion to compel the production of emails containing Plaintiff?s name as a search hit and granted in part Defendant?s motion for a protective order where Defendant established that the emails were not reasonably accessible in light of the time and minimum costs of production, estimated at $45,825, and where the court also found they were not proportional to the needs of the case; although the court found Plaintiff?s proposed terms overbroad (her name) the court disagreed with Defendant?s time limitation on its own search for emails where prior discriminatory acts, even if not actionable, could be used as background evidence and ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding appropriate search terms to be used to search the accounts of 3 custodians over a 4 year period

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Alaska Elec. Pension Fund v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 14-CV-7126 (JMF), 2016 WL 6779901 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Plaintiffs? broad request for documents previously produced by Defendants in prior investigations or produced to or received from any government agency, regulator, department, etc. related to the issues in the current investigation failed to withstand scrutiny to establish relevance beyond merely ?bear[ing] on? the issues in the investigation, particularly where Plaintiffs failed to point to any specific information that that would be found solely in the unproduced documents and not in the 1.5 million documents Defendants did produce from prior investigations (?At bottom, then, Plaintiffs? entire relevancy argument hinges on a general contention that every communication and work product related to the regulatory investigations is ?likely? to contain additional relevant information. But that sort of conclusory claim is insufficient to support such an expansive discovery request.?); court also concluded that the requested discovery was not proportional, but denied the motion without prejudice, allowing plaintiff an opportunity to renew their motion with ?narrower, more proper discovery requests.?

Nature of Case: Conspiracy to manipulate ISDAfix rates (government investigation)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI previously produced to government, all documents sent to/received from government related to issues in underlying investigation (including correspondence, subpoenas, CIDs, etc.)

Moll v Telesector Res. Grp., Inc., No. 04-CV-0805S(Sr), 2016 WL 6095792 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Addressing Plaintiffs? objection to a request for, essentially, all of Plaintiff?s Facebook content, the court cited Giacchetto v. Patchogue-Medford Union Free School Dist., No. 293 F.R.D. 112 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) for the proposition that ?routine status updates and/or communications on social networking websites are not, as a general matter, relevant to [plaintiff?s] claim for emotional distress damages, nor are such communications likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding the same,? but further reasoned that ?post specifically referencing? Plaintiff?s emotional distress or at-issue treatment were discoverable and should be produced

Nature of Case: Motion to compel in case alleging discrimination, harassment, hostile environment, retaliation and unequal pay in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law and the Equal Pay Act

Electronic Data Involved: Social media/social network (Facebook)

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

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: 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 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and of the specific facts of the case, the court 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. In the course of its discussion of the amendments, the court stated: “Amended Rule 26(b)(1) was adopted pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. ? 2072 et. seq. That statute provides that ‘[a]ll laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.’ Id., ? 2072(b). Thus, just as a statute could effectively overrule cases applying a former legal standard, the 2015 amendment effectively abrogated cases applying a prior version of Rule 26(b)(1). The test going forward is whether evidence is ‘relevant to any party?s claim or defense,’ not whether it is ‘reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.'”

Tag:FRCP 26(b)(1) Scope in General (effective Dec. 1, 2015)