FRCP 26(b)(2)(C) Limitations – Page 17 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Purdee v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, 2009 WL 430401 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 19, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel, despite acknowledgement that requested information could ?slightly bolster plaintiff?s claims,? where the requests were either ?overly broad, unnecessarily cumulative, or plainly irrelevant? and where plaintiff did not indicate the information was necessary to survive the pending motion for summary judgment; court also denied motion for spoliation sanctions for destruction of certain data and surveillance video where plaintiff did not show resulting prejudice, but left open the possibility of an adverse inference instruction if defendant chose to reference the allegedly spoliated information at trial

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, surveillance tape

Brodsky v. Humana, Inc., 2009 WL 1956450 (N.D. Ill. July 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Addressing whether certain of plaintiff?s requests were unduly burdensome relative to the likely benefit of production, court granted in part and denied in party plaintiff?s motion to compel upon determining that certain requests were unduly burdensome in light of the estimated time and effort to respond

Nature of Case: Violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, mirror image drives

SEC v. Strauss, 2009 WL 3459204 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found SEC had control of Delloitte & Touche database for purposes of Rule 34 analysis where SEC had both the practical ability and legal right to obtain the working papers contained therein but declined to compel SEC to grant access to defendant where he could obtain independent access to the database himself (by subpoena) and where the access requested would result in ?significant burdens? to SEC, including limiting its own access and interfering with the ability to view files

Nature of Case: Enforcement action for accounting fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Access to database

In re Apotex, Inc., 2009 WL 618243 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Concluding that discovery requests were unduly intrusive and burdensome, court vacated grant of permission to obtain discovery for use in Canadian litigation and quashed the resulting subpoena because responding to the subpoena would require substantial effort on the part of a non-party because of the passage of time, because relevant data was not readily available from a database, as anticipated, due to the organizational structure of the database, and because a privilege review requiring subs6tantial resources would likely need to be undertaken

Nature of Case: Canadian litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from database

EEOC v. Aaron Bros., Inc., 620 F.Supp.2d 1102 (C.D. Cal. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted motion to modify subpoena and rejected defendants arguments it was overly broad and unduly burdensome where the court found the evidence sought to be relevant and material and where defendants failed to present evidence of the actual costs of production, the size of their operations and there capacity to handle those costs, or that such costs would be unduly burdensome

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, harcopy

In re eBay Seller Antitrust Litig., 2009 WL 3613511 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where, in support of its argument that production would be unduly burdensome, eBay provided ?uncertain? estimates of the cost that varied drastically, court held that ?without any clear indication that the costs would be unduly burdensome? the magistrate?s order to compel production was not clearly erroneous; citing Fed. R. 34 for the proposition that the civil rules contemplate the production of information from dynamic databases and case law addressing the same, court held that magistrate did not clearly err in concluding that ?the technical burden to eBay of creating a new dataset for the instant litigation does not excuse production.?

Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of database

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

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