FRCP 26(b)(2)(C) Limitations – Page 4 – Electronic Discovery Law

Colonial Bancgroup, Inc. v. Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP., No. 2:11-cv-746-WKW, 2016 WL 9687001 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 22, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought production of specific folders from e-mail inboxes after defendant had already produced e-mails from those custodians as identified by keyword search terms r, the court found the request duplicative and denied plaintiff?s request. Where plaintiff sought to compel additional searches likely to capture information well beyond that to which plaintiff was entitled and resisted a compromise offer of running the searches with restrictive terms designed to weed out irrelevant information, the court granted the request for additional searches but also granted defendant?s request to include limiting terms to restrict the capture of irrelevant data. Where plaintiff requested a sworn affidavit detailing defendant?s litigation hold efforts including the ?specific actions? which hold notice recipients were directed to take and any enforcement efforts, the court agreed with defendant that specific actions and enforcement efforts were subject to attorney-client privilege but directed plaintiff to ?provide this information via ?sworn affidavit? in a manner which, does not invoke the work product doctrine or violate the attorney-client privilege OR to make a specific legal and factual showing [] as to any work product objection or attorney-client privilege claim? and also ordered production of the other requested information, including custodian names and document types subject to the hold.

Nature of Case: Professional Negligence

Electronic Data Involved: e-mail

Nkansah v. Martinez (Middle District of Lousiana, 2016)

Nov 07 2016

Key Insight: Even broadly worded discovery requests can be granted as long as the information is relevant to discovery and no objections are made

Nature of Case: Automobile accident insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic records

Keywords: Truck, accident, insurance

View Case Opinion

Davis v. Crescent Electric Company et al. (D. S.D., 2016)

Oct 12 2016

Key Insight: NDA adequately protects confidential and/or privileged information during forensic examination

Nature of Case: employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: email

Keywords: forensic examination

View Case Opinion

Dao v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston (Northern District of CA, 2016)

Feb 23 2016

Key Insight: if the balance of the discovery requests outweighed their benefit

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud , negligent misrepresentation, declaratory relief and unfair competition.

Electronic Data Involved: responses of three interrogatories in light of changes to rule 26

Keywords: proportionality, motion to compel, balance of request, benefit of requested discovery

View Case Opinion

Unichappel Music, Inc. v. Modrock Prods., LLC, No. 14-2382-DDP (PLA), 2015 WL 12697738 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where responding party asserted that an at-issue request would require production of ?voluminous? irrelevant documents, that identification of the requested documents would require searching through thousands of clients files estimated to take ?one or more persons weeks to accomplish? or would cost between $8740 – $18350 if a vendor was retained to assist – not including attorney review, and that the information was available through alternative means, including depositions, the court concluded that the documents were ?at least minimally relevant? but that the burden of FULL production outweighed the benefit to the requesting party and ordered the responding party to utilize search terms or to hire a vendor to produce a more limited set of documents as prescribed by the court; court declined to shift the costs of the search , reasoning (in footnote) that ?[t]he mere fact that responding to a discovery request will require the objecting party ?to expend considerable time, effort and expense consulting, reviewing and analyzing ?huge volumes of documents and information? is an insufficient basis to object? to a relevant discovery request.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Lutzeier v. Citigroup Inc., No. 4:14-cv-00183-RLW, 2015 WL 430196 (E.D. Mo. Feb 2, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Addressing Plaintiff?s motion to add custodians, the court granted the motion, in part, but declined to compel the addition of high-level executives absent a showing that they had ?unique or personal knowledge of the subject matter that warrants their information?; Court found that the current ?search criteria adequately ensure[d]? the production of relevant documents and declined Plaintiff?s request for additional search terms except the phrase ?consent order? where confusion existed as to the existence of ?other? consent orders relevant to the case; where plaintiff was unsatisfied with Defendant?s production of more than 46,000 documents ?without providing any indication as to which documents are responsive to which of Plaintiff?s fifty-eight (58 ) enumerated requests,? but where the defendant represented that their production was ?fully text-searchable and contain[s] metadata permitting Plaintiff to identify, among other things, the custodians of the document, recipients, date and other key information,? the court found that the production was ?in a reasonably useable form or forms and/or the production is searchable, sortable and paired with relevant metadata? and thus was compliant with the parties? ESI agreement and with Rule 34

Nature of Case: Wrongful discharge; Age Discrimination; Dodd Frank; Sarbanes-Oxley

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Bagely v. Yale University, —F. supp. 3d—, No. 3:13-CV-1890 CSH, 2015 WL 1897425 (D. Conn. Apr. 27, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court denied motion for protective order seeking permission to be excused from the obligation to conduct further discovery where, although defendant claimed that prior production efforts had resulted in a less than 8% responsiveness rate, the court reasoned that Rule 26(b)(2)(B) ?measures the phrase ?not reasonably accessible? by whether it exposes the responding party to ?undue cost.? Not some cost: undue cost . . .? and where the court reasoned that Plaintiff had, in any event, shown good cause for further discovery; court?s discussion provides good analysis of issues related to 26(b)(2)(B)

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from agreed upon custodians

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Warren Chiropractic & Rehab Clinic, P.C., No. 4:14-CV-11521, 2015 WL 4094115 (E.D. Mich. July 7, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel and rejected objections based on burden where Defendants offered no evidence in support of the alleged claims of burden nor ?any specificity regarding the approximate cost of production?

Nature of Case: Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

US ex rel Oughatiyan v. IPC The Hospitalist Co., Inc., No. 09 C 5418, 2015 WL 4249195 (N.D. Ill. July 14, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court addressed motion to compel nationwide discovery in action for fraudulent billing of Medicare and Medicaid but, considering the ?scope of discovery expressed in Rule 26(b)(1) along with the principle of proportionality implicit in Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii)? limited initial phase of discovery to the seven states regarding which ?factual allegations? had been alleged in the complaint, recognizing that ?staged discovery [was] the way to move discovery forward,? and indicated that the motion would be denied without prejudice

Nature of Case: False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI records from nationwide locations

Artt v. Orange Lake Country Club Realty, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-956-Orl-40TBS, 2015 WL 4911086 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: In FLSA case seeking compensation for ?off the clock? work, court found that defendant?s request for any social media activity posted between 7AM and 7PM on any date between June 19, 2011 and Plaintiff?s termination was ?on its face overbroad, unduly burdensome and unreasonable?

Nature of Case: FLSA

Electronic Data Involved: Social media

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