FRCP 26(b)(2)(b) “Not Reasonably Accessible” – Page 8

IWOI, LLC v. Monaco Coach Corp., No. 07-3453, 2011 WL 2038714 (N.D. Ill. May 24, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to conduct a sufficient search for responsive information and where an important email was located only upon a forensic search of defendant?s computer system after plaintiff offered to bear the costs, court ordered that half of the costs of the search be shifted to defendant

Nature of Case: Breach of warranty and violations of certain state law proscriptions against consumer fraud in connection with sale of motorcoach

Electronic Data Involved: Email

B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Fastenal Co., No. 4:10CV00317 BRW/JTR, 2011 WL 2115546 (E.D. Ark. May 25, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Addressing discovery issues ?looming on the horizon? court indicated that there appeared to be no basis to require defendant to forensically image at-issue hard drives and, addressing whether defendant would be required to restore and review backup tapes which it claimed could cost $84,854,704. 90 (a number the court called ?absurdly high? on its face), found that it would be difficult for plaintiff to meet the seven factor test for good cause and that defendant had sufficiently objected to plaintiff?s request such that arguments that the backup tapes were not reasonably accessible had not been waived

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic image of hard drives, backup tapes

Brokaw v. Davol, Inc., Nos. PC 07-5058, PC 07-4048, PC 07-1706, 2011 WL 579039 (R.I. Super. Ct. Feb. 15, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court found backup tapes not reasonably accessible in light of the cost of restoration, review and production but granted plaintiff?s motion to compel where plaintiff?s showed ?good cause for some discovery? and held the motion in abeyance until further argument on cost-shifting

Nature of Case: Products liability

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. Chumley, No. 10-cv-01398-PAB-KLM, 2011 WL 2415715 (D. Colo. June 15, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of plaintiff?s audio calls where plaintiff asserted that defendant?s claims were ?thin? and did not specify any damages and where in light of this, plaintiff asserted that the burden of producing the requested audio recordings outweighed any potential benefit; plaintiff supported its assertions that the audio recordings were ?not reasonably accessible? with affidavits indicating the high volume of calls to review, the need to listen to each call to determine its responsiveness, the incredible time and financial costs of such a review, and the possibility that privileged calls were present in the mix such that a third party could not be relied on to assist

Nature of Case: False and misleading advertising, deceptive sales practices

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings of phone calls

Garcia v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2010 WL 5392660 (D. Kan. Dec. 21, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motion to compel additional searching and to restore back up tapes where the court determined that plaintiffs? motion was untimely in light of their knowledge of the relevant facts (namely defendants? intention to search the hard drives of a limited number of custodians and not everyone listed on their litigation hold notice and their assertion that backup tapes were inaccessible) and failure to move to compel within the court-established deadline for such motions and where plaintiffs failed to establish good cause to justify the belated filing; court also noted plaintiffs? failure to show a likelihood that additional searching would result in the discovery of additional responsive emails

Nature of Case: Class action employment/wage litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, backup tapes

Johnson v. Neiman, 2010 WL 4065368 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 18, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted defendants? motion for a protective order precluding their obligation to produce evidence contained only on backup tapes where defendants made a sufficient showing of the burden to do so in terms of both money and time and where plaintiff was unable to establish good cause to compel the production; court found it ?most significant? that plaintiff had ?no idea what, if any? discoverable information could be obtained by the restoration and search of the tapes

Electronic Data Involved: Emails stored on backup tapes

Colony Ins. Co. v. Danley, Inc., 2010 WL 3894203 (D. Me. Oct. 4, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants? counsel refused to electronically search its files for potentially responsive information, the court found the data ?not reasonably accessible? and denied plaintiffs? motion to compel the search where defendants? counsel had already spent 30 hours searching and had produced or logged the documents discovered in that search, and where plaintiffs? offered ?no reason to believe that further responsive documents exists or, if any do, that they are not cumulative??; ?alternatively? court denied the motion ?pursuant to 26(b)(2)(c)? where ?the burden ? of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit?

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic contents of files of defendants’ counsel

Cartel Asset Mgmt. v. Ocwen Fin. Corp., 2010 WL 502721 (D. Colo. Feb. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants bore the burden of persuasion when asserting that ESI was inaccessible because of undue burden or cost and where defendants? supported their claim of inaccessibility with only one declaration which lacked specific information regarding defendants? storage practices, the number of back-up or archival systems that would need to be searched, or defendants? capability to retrieve information from those back-up or archival systems, the court denied defendants? Motion for a Protective Order

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, unfair competition, unjust enrichment and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Universal Del., Inc. v. Comdata Corp., 2010 WL 1381225 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where third-party (and former defendant) signed stipulation to preserve and produce ESI as if still a party to the litigation and later sought reimbursement for the review and production of data in a particular database, court ordered a database be created comprised of the four custodians at issue, that plaintiff pay $4085 to the vendor as a ?start-up fee? (pursuant to their agreement to do so), and that plaintiff and third-party split the remaining costs of creating the database, but ordered third-party to bear the costs of its own review prior to production

Nature of Case: Antitrist litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Nissan N.Am., Inc. v. Johnson Elec. N. Am., Inc., 2010 WL 1790354 (E.D. Mich. May 5, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Upon defendant?s motion to compel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B), court ordered plaintiff to supplement its discovery to specifically identify sources of ESI claimed to be ?not reasonably accessible? and to provide the anticipated costs and efforts involved in retrieving that ESI

Nature of Case: Defective design of air conditioner components leading to recall

Electronic Data Involved: Not reasonably accessible ESI

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