FRCP 26(b)(2)(C) Limitations – Page 21 – Electronic Discovery Law

Donnelly v. NCO Fin. Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 5551377 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 16, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel defendant to produce a list of all persons it called on cellular telephones within particular area codes, despite defendant?s claim that such production would be unduly burdensome and minimally probative and that it would need to create special programs to extract the information which would take ?several hundred hours,? where court determined plaintiff?s need for the information outweighed the burden in producing it

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Brown v. Coleman, 2009 WL 2877602 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where expert witness destroyed relevant surgical logs and resisted production of alternative evidence upon the objection that a review of all patient files would be unduly burdensome, court denied motion to compel production of the logs but ordered that as a sanction for spoliation, the expert would not be allowed to testify as to the number of fat grafting procedures he had performed, and would have to be qualified as an expert based on other information

Nature of Case: Medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Surgical records

Grand River Enters. Six Nations, Ltd. v. King, 2009 WL 330213 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: District Court affirmed denial of plaintiff?s motion for an order compelling the production of ?econometric data? previously produced to the FTC, and the computer programs used to calculate it, because the data was of limited relevance, because the risk created by disclosure of the sensitive information outweighed the limited benefit to plaintiffs, and because the calculations for which the data was necessary had already been performed in another case and thus were available from an alternative source

Electronic Data Involved: Econometric data and computer programs

In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., 2009 WL 959491 (D. Kan. Apr. 3, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied defendants? motion for an order relieving them of their obligation to ?review and log documents created after the commencement of litigation relating to communications with attorneys about this lawsuit,? despite defendants arguments of extreme burden, where defendants offered no case law in support of their position , where not all documents created post litigation and involving an attorney would be protected from production as privileged, and where defendants made no effort to address the lesser burden of reviewing only potentially relevant email; sympathetic to defendants? arguments that logging each message would be burdensome, court permitted defendants to categorically describe privileged communications in log

Electronic Data Involved: Email communications created after commencement of litigation

Patterson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2009 WL 1107740 (D. Kan. Apr. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court indicated reluctance to intervene in discovery dispute regarding contents of back up tapes where parties failed to properly confer regarding electronic discovery but, where defendants offered to search back up tapes for relevant emails from two custodians on three specific dates, court ordered the search and prescribed search terms to employ; where the estimated labor to conduct the limited search of the back up tapes would not be excessive or unduly burdensome, court ordered defendant to bear cost

Electronic Data Involved: Back up tapes

Wilson v. Farris, 2009 WL 1393688 (M.D. Fla. May 15, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant represented that searching for requested documents would require ?hundreds of hours to complete? because each search resulted in thousands of records to be read and cross checked against hard copy to determine there responsiveness, and where defendant further indicated that the searching undertaken thus far yielded ?very few if any documents? that were responsive to plaintiff?s request, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production finding the required search ?unduly burdensome?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Medcorp, Inc. v. Pinpoint Tech., Inc., 2009 WL 2194036 (D. Colo. July 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Noting that a party seeking discovery from a non-party ?must satisfy a burden of proof heavier than the ordinary burden imposed by Rule 26 relating to discovery on any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action,? the special master quashed certain of plaintiff?s requests as overly broad and unduly burdensome including a request for forensic copies of a non-party?s employee work stations and server computers and a request for detailed information related to a the non-party?s technical environment, among others

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic copies

High Voltage Beverages, LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. 2009 WL 2915026 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant represented that any additional searching would only result in the discovery and production of duplicative documents, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel defendant to search an identified alternative source upon finding ?that requiring defendant to sift sand for documents it has already produced would be unreasonably duplicative of earlier efforts and that the material contained therein is likely available from other sources, to wit, an earlier production of documents?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Dawe v. Corrections, USA, 2009 WL 3233883 (E.D. Colo. Oct. 1, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Citing a ?pervasive? level of ?distrust that permeates this litigation? and plaintiff?s ?adamant refusal to permit even a limited inspection? and citing defendants? representations that additional, relevant information remained on the laptop and that the laptop had been ?forensically cleaned,? court granted defendants? motion to compel inspection of plaintiff?s laptop but ordered defendants to bear the cost – if inspection revealed relevant information was withheld, court invited a motion to shift some or all of the costs to plaintiff(s)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, laptop

United Consumers Club, Inc. v. Prime Time Mktg. Mgmt., Inc., 2009 WL 3200540 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 25, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where request for production was unduly burdensome in light of the cost of production and necessary labor to comply, despite the requesting party?s attempt to narrow the scope, and where the court found the request overly broad and that it sought information irrelevant to the litigation, court declined to compel production in response to the particular request, but granted in part other portions of the motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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