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

1
Mid. Am. Sols. LLC v. Vantiv, Inc., No. 1:16-mc-2, 2016 WL 1611381 (S.D. Ohio April 4, 2016)
2
Kissing Camels Surgery Center, LLC v. Centura Health Corp., No. 12-cv-03012-WJM-NYW, 2016 WL 277721 (D. Colo. Jan. 22, 2016)
3
Perez v. Mueller, No. 13-C-13-2, 2016 WL 3360422 (E.D. Wis. May 27, 2016)
4
Nelson v Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. 13-cv-607 (SRN/SER), 2016 WL 6917205 (D. Minn. May 13, 2016)
5
In re Ex Parte Application of Global Energy Horizons Ltd., No. 14-3180, 2016 WL 1657889 (3d Cir. Apr. 26, 2016)
6
Sharma v. BMW N. Amer. LLC, No. 13-cv-02274-MMC (KAW), 2016 WL 1019668 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016)
7
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)
8
MP Nexlevel of California, Inc. v. CVIN LLC, No. 1:14-cv-00288-LJO-EPG, 2016 WL 1408459 (E.D. Cal. April 11, 2016)
9
Duhigg v. Goodwill Indus., No. 8:15CV91, 2016 WL 4991480 (D. Neb. Sept. 16, 2016)
10
In re Fluoroquinolone Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL. No. 15-2642 (JRT), 2016 WL 4045414 (D. Minn. July 20, 2016)

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

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

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

Nelson v Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. 13-cv-607 (SRN/SER), 2016 WL 6917205 (D. Minn. May 13, 2016)

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

In re Fluoroquinolone Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL. No. 15-2642 (JRT), 2016 WL 4045414 (D. Minn. July 20, 2016)

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

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