FRCP 26(b)(2)(C) Limitations – Page 6 – Electronic Discovery Law

Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Wake Forest Univ. Health Sciences, No. SA-11-CV-163-XR, 2014 WL 1787813 (W.D. Tex. May 5, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for protective order barring defendants from obtaining CEO’s e-mails during discovery, finding that CEO had potentially relevant information that defendants might not be able to obtain from other custodians and that CEO’s high level role did not make discovery of his e-mails any more or less burdensome than producing e-mails of other executives

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: E-mail of CEO who joined plaintiff after lawsuit was filed

Zeller v. S. Cent. Emergency Med. Servs., No. 1:13-CV-2584, 2014 WL 2094340 (M.D. Pa. May 20, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court ruled that plaintiff was entitled to a “first review” of results of independent forensic examination of plaintiff’s email account, and that plaintiff and defendants would share equally in cost of restoring and searching plaintiff’s emails, up to a maximum contribution by plaintiff of $1,500

Nature of Case: Family and Medical Leave Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s emails

FDIC v. Baldini, No. 1:12-7050, 2014 WL 1302479 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 28, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for protective order, rejecting plaintiff’s proposed protocol that would require defendants to supply search terms (which plaintiff would then apply to the ESI) and require defendants to pay ESI copying costs; court ordered plaintiff to fashion initial set of search terms and work with defendants to reach agreement on search terms to be used, and set out protocol to be followed by the parties for the production

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duties, negligence

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Cochran v. Caldera Med., Inc., No. 12-5109, 2014 WL 1608664 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 22, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: In case where defendant represented that it was currently defending approximately 1,709 claims nationwide involving its various products, and that it had limited financial resources, court denied defendant’s request that plaintiffs share in the cost of producing documents and ESI as defendant did not demonstrate that ESI sought by plaintiffs was inaccessible; court further noted that, given the importance of the discovery requests to plaintiffs’ ability to prove their claims, and the seriousness of the injuries alleged by plaintiffs, the burden or expense of the discovery requests was outweighed by the likely benefit to plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Product liability re implantable surgical meshes

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, text messages, voicemail messages

In re Uehling, No. 1:14-mc-00009-LJO-BAM, 2014 WL 1577459 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion to compel nonparty to answer deposition questions and produce documents, finding that nonparty’s burden of producing copy of external hard drive containing 9.47 gigabytes of information was substantial as the material would need to be reviewed for privilege and for potential redaction and withholding based on confidentiality, privacy and proprietary information purposes, the benefit of the documents to defendant was “minimal,” and defendant had an alternative source for the information sought (i.e., the plaintiff)

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive that non-party witness provided to DOJ in the course of the DOJ’s investigation of plaintiff

Sprint Commc?ns Co., L.P. v. Comcast Cable Commc?ns, LLC, Nos. 11-2684-JWL, 11-2685-JWL, 11-2686-JWL, 2014 WL 1794552 (D. Kan. May 6, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Evaluating parties’ competing discovery protocols, court noted that defendants had not asked Sprint to collect documents from 60+ custodians, but, rather, faced with Sprint?s failure to identify potential custodians in violation of the agreed discovery order, defendants started suggesting people and asked Sprint either to search those individuals? files or explain why production from particular custodians on list was not necessary; court disapproved of Sprint?s continued failure to work with defendants to reach a reasonable solution, rejected as ?clearly unreasonable? Sprint?s proposal to collect responsive documents from only 12 new custodians, and ordered Sprint to sit down with defendants in a good faith attempt to resolve the issue; court further ordered Sprint to include in its document searches a ?human review? of hard copy documents

Nature of Case: Consolidated cases involving patent infringement claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI; documents produced in prior litigations; metadata

FDIC v. Bowden, No. CV413-245, 2014 WL 2548137 (S.D. Ga. June 6, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where FDIC spent $614,000 to digitally scan about 2.01 terabytes of data or 153.6 million pages of documents after taking over failing bank, and before any written document requests were served, court evaluated parties? competing proposals for conducting e-discovery, discussed the governing standards for manner of document production, formatting issues, and cost-shifting for digital format conversion expenses, and ultimately approved protocol offered by FDIC; court further instructed that, in the event of any further ESI-protocol disagreement or objection to the court?s decision, the parties must first confer and attempt to craft a joint ESI protocol or consent order in light of the principles highlighted in the court?s ruling

Nature of Case: Bank receiver brought bank mismanagement case against 16 of bank’s former directors and officers

Electronic Data Involved: Records of failed bank

Black & Veatch Corp. v. Aspen Ins. (UK) Ltd., No. 12-2350-SAC, 2014 WL 806122 (D. Kan. Feb. 28, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied in most respects plaintiff’s motion for protective order, finding that plaintiff’s undue burden and expense arguments were unsupported and conclusory; court further denied plaintiff’s alternative proposal to shift some of the uncalculated ESI costs onto defendants as plaintiff failed to show that the disputed ESI production was inaccessible because of undue burden or cost, and because other relevant factors did not weigh in plaintiff’s favor; court further denied plaintiff?s request for a discovery conference or appointment of an ESI master, and ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding the proper method to search custodian hard drives, and suggested the parties consider a clawback provision specifically for ESI harvested after running the parties? respective search terms

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage dispute

Electronic Data Involved: ESI in databases and stored on custodian hard drives

Shipley v. Forest Labs., No. 1:06-cv-00048-TC-DBP, 2014 WL 4270939 (D. Utah Aug. 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Stating it could not speculate about defendant’s claimed burden given lack of any details, court granted in part plaintiff’s motion to compel and ordered defendant to run a preliminary search of custodial files belonging to particular sales representatives using search terms and time limits set forth in Case Profile Form, and to submit a certification to the court describing the volume of responsive documents and the approximate cost defendant would incur in running a full search through its vendor and through privilege review; once the court received the certification, it would determine whether the burden of producing such custodial documents outweighed the benefit of production

Nature of Case: Products liability wrongful death action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Chickadaunce v. Minott, No. 1:13-cv-01223-WTL-MJD, 2014 WL 4980547 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 6, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Considering the totality of circumstances and balancing the highly relevant and probative value of the information sought with the slight burden to defendant of preparing a database of case files (estimated by defendant to be 15-20 hours), and taking into account society’s interest in furthering the truthseeking function in the case, court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel and ordered defendants to produce database of electronic case files within 14 days

Nature of Case: Class of approximately 4,800 disabled individuals sued officials of Indiana Family & Social Services Administration alleging violations of Americans with Disabilities Act and other claims

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic case files of approximately 200 past and current class members

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