FRCP 26(b)(2)(C) Limitations – Page 11 – Electronic Discovery Law

Bruno v. Bozzuto?s, Inc., 850 F. Supp. 2d 462 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs destroyed paper copies of records that were also maintained in electronic format (by a third party) despite anticipation of litigation, court ordered discovery reopened for the purpose of allowing plaintiff to take the necessary action to acquire the electronic records and to provide them to defendant at their own cost and indicated that if the records were no longer in the third party?s possession, the court would ?reconsider its ruling? where the absence of those records would result in a greater degree of prejudice to the defendant

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copies of hard copy records that had been destroyed

Barnes v. District of Columbia, —F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 WL 4101943 (D.D.C. Sept. 19, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs discovered, late in the discovery time period, that defendant?s database production was incomplete but defendant claimed plaintiffs were merely using the wrong query?a query that defendant had not yet produced?the court ordered that defendant produce the relevant query and left open plaintiffs? option to re-file its motion to compel production of additional data if, upon conducting its analysis with the proper query, it nonetheless determined (and could successfully show) that relevant data was missing

Nature of Case: Civil rights claims related to overdetention and strip searching of inmates

Electronic Data Involved: Database content, relevant database query

United States v. NCR Corp., No. 10-C-910, 2012 WL 4955304 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 17, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of additional documents in CERCLA action where government had already produced a ?staggering? amount of discovery and indicated that additional discovery obligations would be burdensome and where the information sought would only be of ?limited relevance? to the issues of the case

Nature of Case: CERCLA

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Adkins v. EQT Prod. Co., No. 1:10cv00041, 2012 WL 5465491 (W.D. Va. May 31, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing Defendant?s Motion for a Protective Order based on undue burden, court was ?persuaded? that no review was necessary to protect privilege because of the parties? Clawback Order and further found that a reasonable approach in light of Defendant?s assertions of burden (including that processing and review costs could exceed 4 million dollars, as represented by Defendant?s litigation support vendor) was to require Defendant to search and filter its ESI itself (rather than relying on the vendor), with all emails to be designated ?confidential? which would then shift the burden to Plaintiff?s counsel to determine if the ESI produced was over or under inclusive; Court specifically held that ?the court may consider the cost of review of ESI for privileged or responsive information in deciding whether discovery imposes an undue burden or cost on a responding party. Furthermore if the court were inclined to limit discovery based on the burden or cost of the review, I hold that the court could shift the costs of that review, either in whole or in part, to the requesting party.?

Nature of Case: Class action based on alleged entitlement to royalty payments

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Ohio Valley Environ. Coalition, Inc. v U.S. Army Corps of Eng?gs, No. 1:11MC35, 2012 WL 112325 (N.D. W. Va. Jan. 12, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where non-party represented that responding to subpoena would be burdensome in light of need to comb through vast amounts of ESI which had not been organized in anticipation of litigation, court determined such representations constituted ?blanket assertions? but failed to meet the high burden of showing, with particularity, the source and extent of the burden claimed and declined to quash the subpoena for that reason

Electronic Data Involved: Research materials from university professor

Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., No. 10 Civ. 6950(LBS)(JCF), 2012 Wl 3964742 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court addressed in depth a myriad of important discovery issues (e.g. ?phasing, sampling, and proportionality?); as to the question of reasonable accessibility, court clarified that a showing of undue burden alone is insufficient to establish inaccessibility and that the alleged burden must be ?associated with some technological feature which inhibits accessibility? and, noting that defendant?s databases were not inaccessible because of such a feature, found that rule 26(b)(2)(B) presented ?no barrier? to discovery of the at-issue databases; turning to the question of proportionality pursuant to Rule 26(b)(2)(C), court focused on section (iii) and, after discussing options to lessen Defendant?s burden, including sampling or a ?document dump,? found that most ESI was subject to production for reasons including the importance of the information to the case, the high financial stakes and Defendant?s ?ample resources,? the importance of the issues being litigated, and Defendant?s exaggeration of the burden and the inadequacy of proposed alternatives

Nature of Case: Putative class action asserting gender discrimination by employer

Electronic Data Involved: Database content

Eisai v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, No. 08-4168 (MLC), 2012 WL 1299379 (D.N.J. Apr. 16, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motions to compel discovery from an additional 175 custodians and an additional 27 custodians (two separate requests) upon its determination that the requests were cumulative or duplicative and that the burden outweighed the potential benefit; of note was the significant expenditures of the defendants on already-produced discovery and the volumes produced as well as the estimated cost of the additional requested discovery, where the estimated burden of producing the additional 175 custodians was 140,00 hours of manpower and roughly $15 million dollars?an amount that exceeded the expected value of plaintiff?s claim

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from 200+ custodians

U.S. Bank Nat?l Assoc. v. PHL Variable Ins. Co., No. 12 Civ. 6811(CM)(JCF), 2012 WL 5395249 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Considering burdensome nature of subpoenas to non-parties, court found that cost shifting was appropriate and ordered plaintiff to bear the search, collection and production costs associated with the non-parties? compliance with the subpoenas; non-parties? were ordered to bear their own costs associated with privilege review, but, in order to give them ?the option of conducting a more economical analysis while minimizing the risk of waiver,? the court entered a non-waiver order pursuant to Rule 502(d) that would preclude the disclosure of privileged documents from resulting in waiver in any proceeding

Nature of Case: Alleged breach of insurance policies and violations of various related laws

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Adair v. EQT Prod. Co., No. 1:10cv00037, 2012 WL 1965880 (W.D. Va. May 31, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Considering the burden of production and the court?s ability to relieve it, the court held that consideration of the cost of review alone, related to otherwise accessible data, can be considered in deciding whether discovery imposes an undue burden or cost and may form the basis for a court?s decision to shift costs; court noted in this case, though, that a protective order and clawback agreement combined with a proposal to preclude production of any documents to or from in-house or outside counsel precluded defendant’s need to conduct a expensive privilege review and ordered production in accordance with the court?s order; affirmed with minor modifications 2012 WL 2526982

Electronic Data Involved: Esi

United States v. Warner, No. C 11-04181 LB, 2012 WL 6087193 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought the government?s production of all communications between himself and the government, all documents concerning its debt collection policies, and information related to the government?s debt collection efforts related to his debt, the court found that the government?s burden argument was unpersuasive where it lacked specific information to support the claim and where, pursuant to the factors in Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii), the burden did not outweigh the benefit of the requested discovery

Nature of Case: Student loan debt collection

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:FRCP 26(b)(2)(C) Limitations