FRCP 26(b)(2)(b) “Not Reasonably Accessible” – Page 5

Black & Veatch Corp. v. Aspen Ins. (UK) Ltd., No. 12-2350-SAC, 2014 WL 806122 (D. Kan. Feb. 28, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied in most respects plaintiff’s motion for protective order, finding that plaintiff’s undue burden and expense arguments were unsupported and conclusory; court further denied plaintiff’s alternative proposal to shift some of the uncalculated ESI costs onto defendants as plaintiff failed to show that the disputed ESI production was inaccessible because of undue burden or cost, and because other relevant factors did not weigh in plaintiff’s favor; court further denied plaintiff?s request for a discovery conference or appointment of an ESI master, and ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding the proper method to search custodian hard drives, and suggested the parties consider a clawback provision specifically for ESI harvested after running the parties? respective search terms

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage dispute

Electronic Data Involved: ESI in databases and stored on custodian hard drives

Shipley v. Forest Labs., No. 1:06-cv-00048-TC-DBP, 2014 WL 4270939 (D. Utah Aug. 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Stating it could not speculate about defendant’s claimed burden given lack of any details, court granted in part plaintiff’s motion to compel and ordered defendant to run a preliminary search of custodial files belonging to particular sales representatives using search terms and time limits set forth in Case Profile Form, and to submit a certification to the court describing the volume of responsive documents and the approximate cost defendant would incur in running a full search through its vendor and through privilege review; once the court received the certification, it would determine whether the burden of producing such custodial documents outweighed the benefit of production

Nature of Case: Products liability wrongful death action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc., No. 13-cv-04545-VC (KAW), 2014 WL 5280966 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part plaintiff?s request to compel defendant to produce emails employing particular keywords in Boolean search of five identified custodians, stating that defendant need not run two of the requested searches because they used truncated versions of defendant?s product names — something that was prohibited by the parties? ESI Order barring use of indiscriminate terms, such as the producing company?s name or its product name, unless combined with narrowing search criteria to reduce risk of overproduction; as to third requested search, magistrate judge ordered parties to confer to identify keywords that would remove ?out of office? and other automatic responses from the results, and ordered defendant to produce emails within seven days of parties? agreement

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Klayman v. City Pages, No. 5:13-cv-143-Oc-22PRL, 2014 WL 5426515 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel given broad scope of the requests and plaintiff’s limited showing as to relevance, and defendants’ representation that they had produced all the materials upon which they relied in writing the subject publications; court further denied request for appointment of third party to conduct forensic examination of defendants’ work and personal computers, telephone records and cell phone records, finding that plaintiff’s conclusory and speculative assertions that defendants were concealing evidence were inadequate to meet his burden of showing good cause for such an invasive computer examination

Nature of Case: Defamation claims based on statements made in three newspaper articles

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Autohop Litig., No. 12-CV-4155 (LTS)(KNF), 2014 WL 5591047 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel, agreeing with plaintiff that particular document request was overly broad, unduly burdensome, and incomprehensively vague, and concluding that enormous burden and expense that would incurred by plaintiff to access and process the requested data outweighed any benefit defendant might gain; court further noted that the request violated agreement reflected in parties’ Joint Electronic Discovery Submission that they would not be required to search for “other forms of ESI whose preservation requires extraordinary affirmative measures that are not utilized in the ordinary course of business”

Nature of Case: Declaratory action with counterclaims for copyright violations, breach of contract and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Internal communications, viewership tracking data

Green v. Am. Modern Home Ins. Co., No. 1:14-cv-04074, 2014 WL 6668422 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court granted parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Agreed Order Establishing Protocol for Production of Electronically Stored Information, which addressed search terms, production format, and various other e-discovery matters

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Johnson v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. C 14-5064, 2014 WL 7377198 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Addressing Defendant?s claims that the emails of thirty-four employees previously identified by Defendant as potentially having responsive information were not reasonably accessible, the court indicated that Defendant?s declaration in support of that claim was ?of limited value? where it made only broad claims regarding the potential time it could take to search each computer but failed to account for the actual time taken to search the computers of the four primary adjusters for a prior production but acknowledged it was ?extremely difficult? to conclude that all thirty-four employees had ?significant, relevant discoverable emails or documents? and thus ordered the search and production of one custodian revealed in deposition to have been involved in the at-issue denial of coverage and that Plaintiff could choose 10 additional employees? computers to be searched based on Defendant?s court-ordered description of each employees? job and the type of documents they were likely to maintain

Nature of Case: Insurance litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Stewart v. Continental Cas. Ins. Co., No. 12-005320KD-B, 2014 WL 12600282 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 1, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where responding party claimed that cloning and searching the hard drives from ?old computers? changed out in 2010 would cost more than $13,000 and submitted the affidavit of its CEO in support of its claim that the information was not reasonably accessible, the court reasoned it was ?not clear? that the ESI was not reasonably accessible or that the cost outweighed the ?importance and usefulness of the emails? and ordered the responding party to make arrangements for a forensic search of the CEO?s old hard drive which ?should yield representative information regarding the accessibility of the requested emails, the probability of locating the emails, the usefulness of the emails, the actual cost likely to be incurred for a search of all of the old computer hard drives at issue?; court also denied cost-shifting request ?at this time?

Nature of Case: Insurance

Electronic Data Involved: Emails on old computer hard drives

Bradfield v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., No. 5:13-cf-222-Oc-10PRL, 2014 WL 4626864 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs? law firm experienced severe power surge that damaged server and firm engaged IT expert who made good faith effort to restore and obtain all data on firm?s computer system, including data responsive to defendant?s document requests, court found that plaintiffs had met their burden of showing that additional ESI was not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost, and further determined that circumstances did not warrant forensic examination of firm?s computer system as defendant failed to show good cause for the examination and could not demonstrate that the likely benefit of the discovery sought outweighed the significant burden and expense, considering the importance of the issues at stake and notwithstanding defendant?s offer to bear the financial cost of the forensic examination

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage dispute

Harrington Enters., Inc. v. Safety-Kleen Sys., Inc., No. 13-00167-CV-W-BP, 2014 WL 12611318 (W.D. Mo. July 11, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel searches of current and proposed custodians using additional search terms where Plaintiff failed to establish the relevance of the terms or the likelihood they would lead to admissible evidence and where Defendant had already provided discovery regarding the alleged issue, thus rendering the discovery cumulative and duplicative; court also denied motion to add custodians where Plaintiff again failed to establish relevance and where Defendant had shown that the ESI for the requested custodians was not reasonably accessible because it would require restoration of disaster backup tapes and ?substantial time, effort, and cost? to search

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (additional search terms, custodians)

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