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

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

Tumbling v. Merced Irrigation Dist., 2009 WL 2136112 (E.D. Cal. July 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(c)(i) and (ii), court denied defendant?s motion to compel production of plaintiff?s hard drive where defendant admitted that it had not yet exhausted less intrusive or burdensome means of discovering the information sought

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Beyer v. Medico Ins. Group, 2009 WL 3817211 (D.S.D. Nov. 13, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant claimed responding to discovery would require searching 200,000 claim files but where court determined defendant could sort claims files using specific codes, court found defendant?s assertions ?disingenuous? and ordered production of the requested files; where defendant claimed search remained unduly burdensome because of need to convert certain files to allow text searching, court reasoned that ?the fact that answering [request for relevant discovery] will be burdensome and expensive is not in itself a reason for the court?s refusing to order discovery which is otherwise appropriate? and ordered the production of all documents describing defendant?s electronic means of searching and all software used during the relevant timeframe (as requested by plaintiff) if defendant persisted in claiming an inability to search electronically as a basis for refusing to answer discovery

Nature of Case: Bad faith denial of insurance claims

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic claim files

In re Motor Fuel Temp. Sales Practices Litig., 2009 WL 959493 (D. Kan. Apr. 3, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court overruled defendants? objections that searching for pre-2001 paper documents would be overly burdensome and ordered production of boxes potentially containing relevant information, as maintained in the course of business, for inspection and identification of responsive materials to be copied, with no waiver of privilege as to documents determined to be privileged; acknowledging defendant?s burden in searching pre-2001 email where data was not easily accessible because of disparate email systems and back up procedures, court allowed plaintiffs, after reviewing hard copy, to specifically identify email or other ESI for production, if found, but did not order a search of all email; where Shell defendant proved undue burden in physically searching individual stations for responsive data, court limited search to ten locations but declined to find undue burden regarding the search of databases and ordered defendants to search the individual databases of 246 Shell stations for responsive information

Nature of Case: Claims arising from accusations that defendants sold fuel at a specified price without adjusting for temperature expansion

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy, archived email, databases, ESI

State Farm Ins. Co. v. Policherla, 2009 WL 2170183 (E.D. Mich. July 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied defendants? motion to quash third party subpoena upon finding defendants? could claim no viable privacy interest and thus lacked standing and where plaintiff?s showing of relevance outweighed defendants? claims of harm; court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel claim related information, despite acknowledgement of defendants? burden, where plaintiff established the relevance of such data, but ordered a sampling of the requested data while reserving plaintiff?s prerogative to make a showing that additional disclosure would be productive

Nature of Case: RICO

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Benedict College v. Nat?l Credit Systs., 2009 WL 3839473 (D.S.C. Nov. 16, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Rejecting defendant?s claims that discovery was produced as maintained in the usual course of business where documents were printed, copied, bates labeled and then converted to .pdf format and defendant?s objections that plaintiff?s requests were overly broad and burdensome, court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel and ordered defendant to produce all responsive documents, organized and labeled according to each request, and to produce to plaintiff and the court a ?faithful electronic copy? of its relevant database with metadata intact to allow for inspection if the need arose; doubting the sufficiency of defendant?s production of email, court ordered company?s president to order a diligent search for responsive documents and to certify by affidavit (using language provided by the court) that such a search was conducted and to provide an explanation for any missing or unfound documents

Nature of Case: Beach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

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

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