FRCP 26(b)(2)(b) “Not Reasonably Accessible” – Page 12

Thielen v. Buongiorno USA, Inc., 2007 WL 465680 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 8, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court granted defendant’s motion to compel forensic inspection of plaintiff’s computer and defendant’s sole expense, but limited the scope of the inspection to determining whether, during the relevant time period, plaintiff accessed defendant’s website or a website which advertised defendant’s services, what interaction plaintiff had with such websites and what, if any, information concerning those internet transactions was subsequently deleted

Nature of Case: Cellular phone user alleged that defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 by sending text messages to plaintiff’s cell phone without his permission

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s computer hard drive

Wiley v. Paulson, 2007 WL 7059722 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel metadata associated with hard copy emails where government established the metadata was not reasonably accessible because of substantial and prohibitive burden and cost; court denied motion without prejudice leaving room for plaintiff to re-file her motion and establish a factual bases for her demand and noted that if such a motion were granted in future, plaintiff would bear the cost

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata associated with hard copy emails

E.E.O.C. v. Boeing Co., 2007 WL 1146446 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where court had previously denied plaintiff’s motion to compel on the grounds that defendant had made the showing, pursuant to Rule 26(b)(2)(C), that email sought was “not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or costs,” and because plaintiff had not shown good cause to justify the expense of the proposed discovery, court denied subsequent motion to compel defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee to provide testimony on how email production cost estimate was determined

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email

O’Bar v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 2007 WL 1299180 (W.D.N.C. May 2, 2007)

Key Insight: Court ordered parties to develop joint precertification discovery plan and articulated detailed guidelines for discovery of ESI adapted from the ?Suggested Protocol for Discovery of Electronically Stored Information? set forth by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

KnifeSource, LLC v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 2007 WL 2326892 (D.S.C. Aug. 10, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant stated it did not maintain physical copies of statements and that compliance with production request would impermissibly require it to create documents, court found that defendant had not shown requested information was “not reasonably accessible” and ordered production to the extent defendant maintained any of the requested information electronically

Nature of Case: Conversion

Electronic Data Involved: Customer account statements

Ex parte Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 987 So.2d 1090 (Ala. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: In light of evidence presented by Cooper that burden of producing responsive emails would entail thousands of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars, Alabama Supreme Court granted in part petition for writ of mandamus and instructed trial court to ?specifically address Cooper’s arguments that compliance with the plaintiffs’ request for the discovery of e-mails is unduly burdensome in light of the recent federal guidelines on that subject,? and to enter an appropriate protective order to the extent it found that the production of certain ESI was unduly burdensome; court further opined that trial court should consider the 2006 FRCP amendments and the factors applied in Wiginton v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 229 F.R.D. 568 (N.D. Ill. 2004)

Nature of Case: Defendant tire manufacturer in product liability case petitioned Alabama Supreme Court for writ of mandamus ordering trial court to grant its motion for a protective order limiting discovery

Electronic Data Involved: Emails and other ESI

Kelly v. Montgomery Lynch & Assocs., Inc., 2007 WL 4412572 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 13, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant produced no evidence or description of its attempt to engage in a “reasonable inquiry” under FRCP 26 to discover and produce the requested information, other than the general observation that finding the information would be difficult, and where issue of numerosity was important issue for class certification, court ordered defendant to produce information and if it failed to immediately undertake good faith effort to do so, court would allow plaintiff and his counsel ?to inspect in a reasonable manner the Defendant’s files and records, including electronically stored information, on these issues?

Nature of Case: Putative class action alleging violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Information regarding number of individuals who received particular letter from defendant collection agency

Guy Chem. Co., Inc. v. Romaco AG, 243 F.R.D. 310 (N.D. Ind. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where non-party used outside computer firm to handle its electronic data and estimated that cost to comply with subpoena would be $7,200, court found that data was “not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost” but ordered production in light of good cause shown, with cost of production to be paid by party who issued subpoena

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Routine business documents stored electronically

Palgut v. City of Colo. Springs, 2006 WL 3483442 (D. Colo. Nov. 29, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: This order constitutes the parties? stipulated Electronic Discovery Plan and Order to Preserve Evidence, which includes definitions of various terms and sets out a number of discovery ?protocols?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Williams, Cohen & Gray, Inc. v. CPS Group, Inc., 2006 WL 3316783 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where defendant objected to providing hard copies of payment data and offered instead to make its database available to plaintiff in New York, court questioned prudence of offer and ordered production to take place in Houston, adding that parties should attempt to arrange for materials to be produced electronically and directing them to confer on method of production

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Tag:FRCP 26(b)(2)(b) “Not Reasonably Accessible”