FRCP 26(b)(1) Scope in General (effective Dec. 1, 2015) – Page 3

In re Disposable Contact Lens AntiTrust Litig., No. 3:15-md-2626-J-20JRK, 2016 WL 6518660 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where the ?potential relevance? of the information sought was ?essentially undisputed,? but where Defendant claimed to have already spent $700,000 on discovery and that the request for 18 additional custodians could result in an expenditure of at least $1.5 million, court noted that the parties? dispute was essentially a question of proportionality and concluded a that two additional ?upper-management custodians? were warranted (as opposed to the seven requested) and also found that a sample of four sales manages was appropriate (as opposed to the eleven requested); as to Class Plaintiffs? request for a ?hit list? generated by applying the agreed-upon search terms to the collected materials, the court reasoned that in light of the number of custodians and the parties? agreement as to search terms, such a list seemed ?less valuable that it might otherwise be,? but ordered that if one was automatically generated, it should be produced

Nature of Case: Class Action

Electronic Data Involved: Additional Custodians

Kissing Camels Surgery Center, LLC v. Centura Health Corp., No. 12-cv-03012-WJM-NYW, 2016 WL 277721 (D. Colo. Jan. 22, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Plaintiffs objected to Defendants? ?duplicative? requests and claimed they had already produced responsive documents but provided Defendants with no guidance as to where such documents could be found within the voluminous production, the court acknowledged that it would ?ordinarily? conclude that Plaintiffs had no obligation to identify responsive documents but, citing the volume of data at issue, the ?asymmetry of information regarding the production between Plaintiffs,? the time the case had been pending, and the fact that additional discovery would be required, the court concluded that Plaintiff should provide additional information and ordered that Defendants would be permitted to identify ten categories of requested documents that Plaintiffs claimed to be duplicative and that Plaintiffs must then identify documents responsive to those requests

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Scott v. United States Postal Serv., No. 15-712-BAJ-EWD, 2016 WL 7440468 (M.D. La. Dec. 27, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court compelled production of limited social media contents after narrowing the requests to a more appropriate scope

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Social media/social network contents

In re Ex Parte Application of Global Energy Horizons Ltd., No. 14-3180, 2016 WL 1657889 (3d Cir. Apr. 26, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Third Circuit affirmed denial of Global Energy Horizon?s motion to compel reasoning that the District Court was ?on firm ground? in determining the burden imposed upon the non-party would ?likely have been intrusive and burdensome in violation of Rule 45 despite Global?s offer to pay for reasonable cost? where responding to the subpoena seeking ?all communications between [the non-party?s] 400 to 450 employees? and another entity and any financial documents relating to certain technology would require that each employee be interviewed and their hard drives be copied and reasoning that the District Court was reasonable in deciding not to modify the subpoena where the non-party had already ?spent thousands of dollars and substantial time? responding to prior requests; Circuit Court also affirmed lower court?s finding that non-party was under no duty to preserve emails where the record ?did not lead the court to conclude? that the non-party ?should have known that litigation was imminent? and ?Global never sought a litigation hold on [the non-party?s] electronically stored information?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

McKinney/Pearl Rest. Partners, L.P. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 3:14-cv-2498-B, 2016 WL 98603 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: In this case, the court addressed Plaintiff?s motion to compel ?the production and organization of certain documents and metadata? and considered the applicability of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i) and (ii) to the production of electronically stored information. Ultimately, ?[t]he Court [found] persuasive the analysis that, where Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) addresses the organization of a production and Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(ii) specifically addresses the form for producing ESI (where form of production is inherently not an issue with hard-copy documents), and in light of the purposes of the 2006 amendments to Rule 34 and of Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i)?s requirements, Rules 34(b)(2)(E)(i) and 34(b)(2)(E)(ii) should both apply to ESI productions.?

Nature of Case: Breach of commercial lease agreement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Boyington v Percheron Field Servs., LLC, No. 3:14-CV-90, 2016 WL 6068813 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 14, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Plaintiffs sought to compel production of all emails sent to or from any of the Plaintiffs through a Percheron account. The Court found the emails were relevant because they may shed light on informal work policies, hours worked, and serve as a potential cross-reference to the other records kept by Defendant. Analyzing proportionality, the Court concluded that the importance of the issues (to the Plaintiffs), the amount in controversy (alleged to be ?in excess of several million dollars?), the resources of the parties, the parties? relative access to the information and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues weighed in favor of Plaintiffs/production. Regarding whether the burden of discovery outweighed the benefit, the Court acknowledged Defendant?s claim that the review ?would likely cost $735,000-$798,964 and take a team of 20 attorneys 12 weeks to complete,? but reasoned that the Court?s refusal to compel production of certain email categories would lessen the estimated costs and that Defendant?s inability to provide certain data had caused Plaintiffs to have to ?puzzle together damages? and concluded that the request did not ?run afoul? of proportionality. The court also relied on Defendants prior agreement to produce the emails. Addressing Plaintiffs? motion to compel information regarding Defendant?s preservation efforts, the court ordered production of the names of those that received litigation holds and related information, but declined to order the litigation holds themselves.

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, Information re: litigation hold notices

MP Nexlevel of California, Inc. v. CVIN LLC, No. 1:14-cv-00288-LJO-EPG, 2016 WL 1408459 (E.D. Cal. April 11, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court found that the at-issue discovery was not required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and declined to compel production of every document ?referring or relating? to Plaintiff?s ?designated Responsible Managing Employee? for all 11 of Plaintiff?s California projects where the court determined that the relevance was minimal, where both parties ?appeared to agree? that the request would require ?a search for every document to or from [the employee]? and Plaintiff alleged that many documents were not electronically searchable, and where the court recognized that ordering such production could cause a ?chilling effect? that may ?discourage [construction] companies from filing a lawsuit merely to avoid the discovery costs?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI and other records “referring or relating” to specified employee

Wilmington Trust Co. v. AEP Generating Co., No. 2:13-cv-01213, 2016 WL 860693 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 7, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

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

Flowrider Surf, Ltd. v. Pacific Surf Designs, Inc., No. 15cv1879-BEN (BLM), 2016 WL 6522807 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: The parties in this case agreed to produce ESI ?in accordance with the Southern District?s Order Governing Discovery of Electronically Stored Information.? Defendant sought production of all documents that ??hit? on the parties? agreed-upon search terms without further relevance review,? arguing that the terms were narrowly tailored and that any resulting hits were ?presumptively relevant and responsive.? Plaintiffs argued that Defendant?s interpretation of the order was contrary to law and conflicted with the language of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), among other things. Citing a declaration from Plaintiff?s CEO that the search hits, which for some terms numbered in the thousands or tens of thousands, contained a substantial number of irrelevant documents, the court agreed that ?culling for relevance [was] warranted.?

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (search hits)

FTC v. Directv, Inc., No. 15-cv-01129-HSG (MEJ), 2016 WL 3351945 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Following the parties? court-ordered meet and confer to achieve proportionality in Defendant?s requests for production of complaints from FTC customers regarding Defendant?s competitors, Defendant reduced the number of competitors about which it sought information from 10 to 3, but court also approved Plaintiff?s proposal to produce only a random sampling, even from the reduced list of competitors, where the proposal ?more closely comport[ed] with Rule 26?s demand for proportionality? noting that the relevance of the at-issue materials was ?largely speculative?

Electronic Data Involved: Customer complaints submitted to FTC re: Defendant’s competitors

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