FRCP 26(b)(2)(b) “Not Reasonably Accessible” – Page 9

Universal Del. v. Comdata Corp., 2010 WL 2330284 (E.D. Pa. June 4, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Defendant?s motion for a protective order precluding compliance with plaintiff?s? subpoena duces tecum was denied where defendant failed to establish the irrelevance of the data sought and failed to establish the unduly burdensome nature of producing the information requested or to assert that the information was not reasonably accessible and where the court determined that an existing protective order was sufficient to protect any confidential information produced

Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI, hard copy

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

Adele S.R.L. v. Filene?s Basement, Inc., 2009 WL 855955 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding that defendants? first, second, and third productions were ?patently inadequate? and that ?representations by defendants and their attorneys as to the completeness of production were false,? court concluded plaintiffs had incurred some expense as a result of defendants? discovery behavior and that ?the required expenditure of funds to pursue discovery is prejudice enough to justify cost-shifting?; addressing plaintiffs? specific request to shift costs related to the search of back-up tapes resisted by defendants, court declined to shift costs where plaintiffs had not proposed an electronic discovery plan at the outset of litigation and where plaintiffs failed to meaningfully address Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) in their briefing

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, database information, back up tapes

Dilley v. Metro. Life Ins., Co., 256 F.R.D. 643 (N.D. Cal. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Upon finding that because of the ?relative inaccessibility of the information sought?responding to the request would be overly burdensome? where defendant was unable to query its database for the information requested and upon finding that the information sought would not satisfy plaintiff?s purpose without additional information, court found that defendant had established that ?the significance of the discovery to the issues in the present case is substantially outweighed by the burden? and granted defendant?s motion for a protective order

Nature of Case: Wrongful denial of claim for disability benefits

Electronic Data Involved: Database contents

State Farm Ins. Co. v. Policherla, 2009 WL 2170183 (E.D. Mich. July 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied defendants? motion to quash third party subpoena upon finding defendants? could claim no viable privacy interest and thus lacked standing and where plaintiff?s showing of relevance outweighed defendants? claims of harm; court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel claim related information, despite acknowledgement of defendants? burden, where plaintiff established the relevance of such data, but ordered a sampling of the requested data while reserving plaintiff?s prerogative to make a showing that additional disclosure would be productive

Nature of Case: RICO

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Ford Motor Co. v. U.S., 2009 WL 2176657 (E.D. Mich. July 21, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff?s motion to compel the government to produce documents in nine categories, including compelling the government to provide declarations outlining its search methodology and efforts and finding that the government need not attempt to recover emails that had been overwritten because of undue burden and costs, among other things; court rejected government argument that it had not produced a privilege loge because ?producing such a log would defeat [its] unduly burdensome objections? and ordered an ?adequately detailed privilege log for the responsive documents that it withholds from production?

Nature of Case: Action to recover interest accrued on overpayments of corporate income tax

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Bonn v. City of Omaha, 2009 WL 1740783 (D. Neb. June 18, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found the requested electronic discovery ?not reasonably accessible? due to burden and cost and because the expense of the discovery outweighed the likely benefit and denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of relevant emails where defendant stated they had already retrieved and produced all responsive emails from key individuals containing search terms proposed by plaintiff?s counsel

Nature of Case: Wrongful discharge

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC, 2009 WL 2568431 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found emails ?not reasonably accessible? in light of representations of undue burden, including the need for vendor assistance to accomplish the necessary searching, and, upon shifting the burden to defendant to show ?good cause? for the additional emails sought, ordered some specific searching using specific terms and for the parties to confer to identify additional custodians

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

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