FRCP 26(b)(2)(C) Limitations – Page 13 – Electronic Discovery Law

Wood v. Capital One Servs., LLC, No. 5:09-CV-1445, 2011 WL 2154279 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel additional discovery, including ?sweeping searches of ESI using suggested search terms? where, following significant analysis of the rule of proportionality (26(b)(2)(C)), the court determined that the ?minimally relevant information to be developed through the discovery? was ?far outweighed by the burden? associated with it, but left open plaintiff?s option to bear the cost of the discovery himself

Nature of Case: Violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Doyle v. Gonzales, 2011 WL 611825 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 10, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where a small town with ?limited financial and technological resources? sought a protective order to allow phased discovery of ESI in light of the alleged burden and expense of the requested discovery, the court granted in part the defendant?s motion and crafted a protective order which established the search terms to be employed and allowed plaintiff the opportunity to provide suggestions and which provided that if the search returned an unreasonable amount of documents that plaintiff?s counsel should assist in ?restructuring the search? to reduce that number

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Couch v. Wan, No. 1:08cv1621 LJO DLB, 2011 WL 2551546 (E.D. Cal. June 24, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: After defendant reported that the estimated cost of searching its electronically stored information using the search terms provided by plaintiff would be ?at least $54,000? because of the need to hire an outside contractor to assist, the court found that the discovery requests imposed a burden on the defendant that warranted cost shifting and ordered the parties to met and confer to determine an appropriate cost sharing agreement; Reconsideration denied in Couch v. Wan, No. CV F 08-1621 LJO DLB, 2011 WL 291118 (E.D. Cal. July 20, 2011)

Nature of Case: Violations of their free speech rights and violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Graff v. Haverhill N. Coke Co., No. 1:09-cv-670, 2011 WL 1630045 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 24, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where, by comparing the time taken to respond to other requests, defendant established that responding to the requests at issue would be unduly burdensome (requiring an estimated 1,000 to 1,600 hours) and where plaintiff failed to provide ?any particular showing ? of the benefit to be obtained from such information?, the court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Tomlinson v. El Paso Corp., No. 04-cv-02686-WDM-MEH, 2011 WL 2297661 (D. Colo. June 9, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied request for taxation of costs related to conversion of documents into electronic format for discovery purposes where defendant failed to establish that the conversion costs were ?necessarily incurred in the case preparation?; court denied motion for taxation of costs related to creation of secure database in furtherance of responding to a legitimate discovery request where the court was not authorized to award such costs pursuant to the relevant statute and where it was unaware of authority allowing adjustments to the division of costs based on undue burden, an argument that was available ?during the discovery process?

Electronic Data Involved: Conversion of ESI

Murphy v. Target Corp., No. 09cv1436-BEN (WMc), 2011 WL 2728217 (S.D. Cal. July 12, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where target indicated the requested discovery would require the expenditure of approximately 146 hours of employees? time and cost $4,360 and also argued that the requested discovery would invade employees? privacy and was minimally relevant, court found that the burden to Target did not outweigh the likely benefit, rejected defendant?s arguments regarding privacy and relevance, and granted plaintiff?s motion to compel

Nature of Case: Employment Litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Madere v. Compass Bank, No. A-10-CV-812 LY, 2011 WL 5155643 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of email requiring restoration of backup tapes where defendant?s expert averred that it would cost over $270,000 and require hundreds of hours to accomplish, where plaintiff?s expert could not ?ascertain an estimate for the actual cost,? and where ?even if the actual cost of restoring the backup tapes was only a fraction? of the estimated amount, it ?would still outweigh the amount [Plaintiff] seeks to recover?

Nature of Case: Violation of FMLA

Electronic Data Involved: Emails on backup tapes

Greater Lakes Ambulatory Surgical Ctr., PLLC v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., No. 11-11003, 2011 WL 5245141 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 3, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendant indicated that the requested records were not readily searchable because the information sought was not tracked, that compliance with plaintiffs? request would require manual review of ?hundreds of thousands of claims,? that the claim files were not stored as searchable images, and that the cost of reviewing the claim files could eclipse $100,000, the court concluded that defendant had demonstrated undue burden and denied plaintiffs? motion to compel; court also indicated that plaintiffs could have pursued alternative avenues of discovery where defendant indicated that a third party maintained the information requested but failed to do so and that defendant should not be ?required to engage in labor and resource intensive discovery . . . merely because Plaintiff?s failed to subpoena a third-party . . . .?

Nature of Case: Suit arising from Defendant’s refusal to pay certain charges for services provided to insured

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

United States v. AT&T, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-01560, 2011 WL 5347178 (D.D.C. Nov. 6, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied non-party?s motion to quash defendant?s subpoena where defendant adequately narrowed its request and where the non-party failed to establish that the burden of responding was undue, including by failing to provide particulars related to the expected burden of responding; court?s analysis closely followed standard set forth in Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii)

Nature of Case: DOJ investigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Google Litig., No. C 08-03172 RMW (PSG), 2011 WL 6113000 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where third party objected to plaintiff?s subpoena as overly broad and burdensome but nevertheless undertook a limited search which resulted in the identification of zero documents, but where plaintiff argued the search was halfhearted and that additional searching was required, the court took notice of objective of the recently adopted Model Order on E-Discovery in Patent Cases and indicated its applicability to third parties and thereafter ordered plaintiff to provide the non-party with five search terms to be utilized in additional searching and that plaintiff would bear the costs of any terms beyond the limits agreed to by the parties or granted by the court

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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