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

1
Colonial Bancgroup, Inc. v. Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP., No. 2:11-cv-746-WKW, 2016 WL 9687001 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 22, 2016)
2
Nkansah v. Martinez (Middle District of Lousiana, 2016)
3
Davis v. Crescent Electric Company et al. (D. S.D., 2016)
4
Dao v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston (Northern District of CA, 2016)
5
Good v. Am. Water Works Co., Inc., No. 2:14-1374, 2015 WL 1757978 (S.D. W. Va. Apr. 17, 2015)
6
Bagely v. Yale University, —F. supp. 3d—, No. 3:13-CV-1890 CSH, 2015 WL 1897425 (D. Conn. Apr. 27, 2015)
7
Andra Grp. LP v. JDA Software Grp., LLC, No. 3:15-mc-K-BN, 2015 WL 1636602 (N.D. Tex. April 13, 2015)
8
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)
9
Unichappel Music, Inc. v. Modrock Prods., LLC, No. 14-2382-DDP (PLA), 2015 WL 12697738 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2015)
10
US ex rel Oughatiyan v. IPC The Hospitalist Co., Inc., No. 09 C 5418, 2015 WL 4249195 (N.D. Ill. July 14, 2015)

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

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

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

Good v. Am. Water Works Co., Inc., No. 2:14-1374, 2015 WL 1757978 (S.D. W. Va. Apr. 17, 2015)

Key Insight: Where defendant objected to Plaintiffs? requests for production on grounds of relevance, but nevertheless produced the information in the format in which it was ordinarily maintained (Microsoft SQL Server format) and also provided Plaintiffs with the means to access the data in a ?parallel environment? and then later in an excel format for a limited period of time, indicating that the earlier periods of time were not reasonably accessible, and where Plaintiffs ultimately ?did not disagree? that the information was not as useful as they had thought, the court found the rest of the requested information (from the earlier time periods) was not reasonably accessible and that the burden of production outweighed its likely benefit and denied the motion to compel unless good cause could be shown

Electronic Data Involved: Archived ?SCADA? data from a Microsoft SQL Server format

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

Andra Grp. LP v. JDA Software Grp., LLC, No. 3:15-mc-K-BN, 2015 WL 1636602 (N.D. Tex. April 13, 2015)

Key Insight: Court addressed 3rd party?s motion to quash allegedly burdensome subpoena and to preclude further production or to require the defendant to pay for the non-party?s expenses and found that the defendant had demonstrated its needs for ?most of the categories of documents? but also concluded that the 3rd party?s objections should be sustained in part and modified the subpoena?s requests to reduce the burden; Court rejected arguments that 3rd party?s lack of a ?dedicated IT specialist?, use of cloud based email and need to rely on employees? and or hire a vendor establish burden; court also found that ?by producing the documents in non-readable PDF format without the metadata specified by the subpoena?s instructions, and failing to serve any written objections to those instructions, p202 failed to comply with Rule 45(a)(1)(C) and 45(e)(1)?s requirement to comply with the subpoena?s specification of a form for producing ESI? and ordered re-production in accordance with the subpoena?s instruction

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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)

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

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

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

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.