FRCP 26(b)(2)(C) Limitations – Page 16 – Electronic Discovery Law

Eurand, Inc. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 266 F.R.D. 79 (D. Del. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Evaluating the adequacy of plaintiff?s search for a specific category of information, the court noted that the test to determine the appropriateness of a search is whether the search ?could?have been expected to produce the information requested?, determined that the information sought was likely to be found in the emails of the inventors of a specific patent, and ordered plaintiff to search the emails of the relevant inventors within a date range prescribed by the court; opinion included brief discussion of keyword searching and noted, “[n]either lawyers nor judges are generally qualified to opine that certain search terms or files are more or less likely to produce information than those keywords or data actually used or reviewed.”

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Camesi v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 2010 WL 3718867 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 20, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Stating that ?it is defendant?s responsibility to demonstrate objectively reasonable compliance? with the rules regarding ESI, the court found that defendants had failed to do so and denied their motion for a protective order; granting plaintiff?s motion to compel, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer to identify custodians for the purpose of limited discovery/sampling and to identify search terms to be utilized; court ordered defendants to identify potentially responsive ESI sources and to provide a reasonable description of the information stored therein in compliance with Local Rule 26.2

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., LLC v. Fujitsu Ltd., 2010 WL 1901776 (D. Utah May 10, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Addressing a number of issues related to the format and organization of plaintiff?s production and a motion to compel plaintiff?s response to interrogatories, court ordered the production of ESI in its native format where plaintiff failed to object to a request for the same but, where native production was not specified, plaintiff was allowed to select the form of production; unable to determine whether the burden of production of computer data from all computers used by plaintiff over a period of many years would outweigh the value of production, court ordered plaintiff to produce a detailed inventory of each computer and to allow sampling of one or two computers of defendant?s choice in order to determine the need for additional discovery

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drives

Tamburo v. Dworkin, No. 04 C 3317, 2010 WL 4867346 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to stay discovery pending resolution of defendants? Motion to Dismiss, but ?to ensure that discovery [was] proportional to the specific circumstances of the case, and to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this action,? ordered phased discovery and (citing the court?s Case Management Procedures, the Seventh Circuit Electronic Discovery Pilot Program, and the Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation) ordered that the parties cooperate to prepare a phased discovery schedule

Nature of Case: Defamation, tortuous interference with business and civil conspiracy arising from dispute over contents of dog-pedigree software

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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

Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co, 2010 WL 1957802 (S.D. Ohio May 14, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant resisted plaintiff?s motion to compel additional searching based upon having already conducted an initial, agreed-upon keyword search and upon unsubstantiated claims that additional searching would be unduly burdensome regardless of prior efforts, court rejected defendant?s arguments absent a sufficient showing of burden, granted plaintiff?s motion, and ordered the parties to meet and confer to reach agreement regarding the searches

Nature of Case: Securities class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Group, Ltd., 2010 WL 4337388 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 27, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants sought to avoid searching and producing emails and related documents maintained by defendants? CEO and CTO and argued that they had already produced 5.5 million pages and that the information sought was cumulative and therefore imposed an undue burden, the court noted defendants admission that they had not searched or reviewed the materials of the relevant executives and found that plaintiff had shown the likelihood that such a search could lead to the discovery of relevant evidence and ordered the executives? materials to be searched and if responsive, produced

Electronic Data Involved: Executives’ ESI

Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Felman Prod. Inc., 2010 WL 3294389 (S.D. W. Va. Aug. 19, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants sought production from 10 foreign custodians alleged to be agents of the plaintiff, the court conducted an extensive review of evidence as to each persons? involvement with the plaintiff and the applicable case law from several jurisdictions and found as to 9 of the custodians that they maintained relevant information and that plaintiff exercised sufficient control of that information, in light of the custodian?s significant involvement with plaintiff?s business, that the information should be produced; in so holding, the court rejected plaintiff?s arguments that the discovery sought had already been produced, was not under their control, was cumulative and duplicative, and was unduly costly and burdensome to produce

Nature of Case: Claims arising from failure of tranformer for silicomanganese furnace

Electronic Data Involved: ESI in custody of foreign custodians

Lorentz v. Sunshine Health Prods., Inc., 2010 WL 1856265 (S.D. Fla. May 10, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted motion for protective order where plaintiff?s request for inspection of defendants? hard drives was found ?per se overbroad and unduly burdensome when balanced against the need cited? and where plaintiff failed to explain whether a less intrusive option had been attempted, ?as per Rule 34?; despite granting the motion, court noted willingness to entertain a motion to inspect a particular hard drive if provided with a protocol for such inspection indicating a method to protect the non-responsive data

Dana Ltd. v. American Axle & Mfg. Holdings, Inc., 2010 WL 5394885 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 22, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted defendant?s motion to clarify the agreed preliminary injunction order where, following entry of the agreement, defendant determined that the broad language addressing preservation created a cost prohibitive obligation that was broader than necessary to protect the plaintiff and agreed to enter an order reflecting defendant?s proposed revision which was more specific regarding what must be preserved

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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