FRCP 26(b)(2)(C) Limitations – Page 7 – Electronic Discovery Law

Enargy Power (Shenzhen) Co. v. Xiaolong Wang, No. 13-11348-DJC, 2014 WL 4687542 (D. Mass. Sep. 17, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants maintained hard copy business records that they produced electronically on CD-ROM, but did not make a sufficient showing that documents were produced as they were kept in the usual course of business since defendants provided no details regarding where and how documents were maintained, court ordered defendants to organize and label documents to correspond to the categories of documents requested by plaintiffs; court further ruled that defendants need not ?affirm that their document searches and productions are complete without qualification, or that no additional responsive documents exist,? but directed defendants, once they had completed their search and produced all documents they intended to produce, to confirm their efforts in locating responsive documents were complete and whether they were withholding any documents

Nature of Case: Violations of Computer Fraud & Abuse Act, conversion, misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy documents scanned and produced on CD-ROM

Baker v. Bayer Healthcare Pharm., Inc., No. 13-cv-00490-THE (KAW), 2014 WL 5513854 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Finding that sales call notes that plaintiff sought, as opposed to only those concerning plaintiff’s healthcare provider, were relevant, but agreeing that producing all sales call notes for tens of thousands of healthcare providers was unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of this single-plaintiff case, court sought to strike a balance between plaintiff’s entitlement to information relevant to her claims and need to ease defendant’s burden of production, and ordered production of sales call notes that had already been produced in related multidistrict litigation involving over 1,500 plaintiffs; court noted that production in related MDL was limited to the plaintiffs? specific prescribing physicians but that the volume that production would yield would give plaintiff a substantial cross-section of sales call notes without burdening defendant with production of sales call notes for every physician in every market in which the device was promoted

Nature of Case: Single-plaintiff products liability lawsuit

Electronic Data Involved: Databases containing sales call notes from conversations between defendant’s sales representatives and healthcare providers

TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc., No. 13-cv-04545-VC (KAW), 2014 WL 5280966 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part plaintiff?s request to compel defendant to produce emails employing particular keywords in Boolean search of five identified custodians, stating that defendant need not run two of the requested searches because they used truncated versions of defendant?s product names — something that was prohibited by the parties? ESI Order barring use of indiscriminate terms, such as the producing company?s name or its product name, unless combined with narrowing search criteria to reduce risk of overproduction; as to third requested search, magistrate judge ordered parties to confer to identify keywords that would remove ?out of office? and other automatic responses from the results, and ordered defendant to produce emails within seven days of parties? agreement

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Klayman v. City Pages, No. 5:13-cv-143-Oc-22PRL, 2014 WL 5426515 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel given broad scope of the requests and plaintiff’s limited showing as to relevance, and defendants’ representation that they had produced all the materials upon which they relied in writing the subject publications; court further denied request for appointment of third party to conduct forensic examination of defendants’ work and personal computers, telephone records and cell phone records, finding that plaintiff’s conclusory and speculative assertions that defendants were concealing evidence were inadequate to meet his burden of showing good cause for such an invasive computer examination

Nature of Case: Defamation claims based on statements made in three newspaper articles

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Google Inc., No. C13-01317 EJD (HRL), 2014 WL 4088201 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Among other rulings on the parties? respective discovery motions, the court: (1) denied plaintiff?s request for an order compelling defendants to produce document retention policies and litigation hold notices issued in the case, because litigation hold notice was protected as attorney-client communication and/or work product and burden of producing requested material, however minimal, outweighed its likely benefit; court noted that plaintiff waited over one year to follow up on particular request, relevance of material to case merits was dubious, and timing of motion following court?s finding that plaintiff had committed spoliation by failing to timely file its litigation hold suggested that plaintiff?s motivation was retaliatory; and (2) denying plaintiff?s request for source code and documents related to newest version of accused product, which version was still in development, since discovery into such material would be premature because an incomplete, non-?live? product cannot be evaluated for infringement in patent litigation

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, litigation hold notice, source code

Executive Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Fifth Third Bank, No. 1:13-cv-00582-WTL-MJD, 2014 WL 5529895 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 3, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Granting in part plaintiff’s motion to compel, court rejected defendant’s assertion of irrelevance and its conclusory assertions of burdensomeness, finding that defendant had failed to “show with specificity” that plaintiff’s requests were overly burdensome and noting that defendant’s contentions would have more force if defendant had provided an estimate of the cost or hours involved in searching, compiling, and producing the requested information; addressing the discovery of ESI ?more directly,? court ordered defendant to file a disclosure stating the names of all custodians whose ESI was searched, the scope of the ESI searched, date ranges searched for each custodian and specific search terms used, and also provide such information for any additional custodians whose ESI would be searched in light the withdrawal of defendant?s objections; plaintiff was then required, within seven days, to propose a list of additional custodians and scope of ESI, date ranges and specific search terms for such custodians, following which the parties should endeavor to reach agreement regarding the scope of additional e-discovery

Nature of Case: Claims for breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing and breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Autohop Litig., No. 12-CV-4155 (LTS)(KNF), 2014 WL 5591047 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel, agreeing with plaintiff that particular document request was overly broad, unduly burdensome, and incomprehensively vague, and concluding that enormous burden and expense that would incurred by plaintiff to access and process the requested data outweighed any benefit defendant might gain; court further noted that the request violated agreement reflected in parties’ Joint Electronic Discovery Submission that they would not be required to search for “other forms of ESI whose preservation requires extraordinary affirmative measures that are not utilized in the ordinary course of business”

Nature of Case: Declaratory action with counterclaims for copyright violations, breach of contract and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Internal communications, viewership tracking data

Sasol N. Am., Inc. v. Kan. State Inst. for Commercialization, No. 14-mc-218-JWL-KMH, 2014 WL 3894357 (D. Kan. Aug. 8, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Despite fact that plaintiff served all-encompassing subpoena to third parties without first attempting to access the breadth of information from the defendant, in light of nonparty?s unique relationship with defendant in the underlying Texas litigation, the potential for indemnification, its financial interest in the Texas litigation, and nonparty?s repeated (yet unfulfilled) promises to produce responsive material, court determined it was appropriate for nonparty to bear some burden and that limited production was appropriate; court narrowed relevant timeframe for search and ordered nonparty to use search terms proposed by plaintiff and produce its ESI, including emails, attachments, exhibits and word processing documents, which contain those nine search terms

Nature of Case: Subpoena issued in a patent infringement and trade secret case pending in the Southern District of Texas

Electronic Data Involved: Email

In re Incretin Mimetics Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL Case No. 13md2452 AJB (MDD), 2014 WL 4987877 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants estimated that cost of production would be between $280,000 and $400,000, or even greater, court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of adverse event source documents and databases, finding that the additional time and expense of identifying, redacting, and producing the source files outweighed the likely benefit resulting from evaluating source files for instances of mis-classification

Nature of Case: Products liability

Electronic Data Involved: Source documents underlying adverse event reports and adverse event databases

BLX Commercial Capital, LLC v. Bilco Tools, Inc., No. 14-0306, 2014 WL 6684929 (E.D. La. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants requested emails from six employees and all emails regarding liquidation and appraisal of Bilco, and request was further narrowed by the use of eight search terms, plaintiff?s counsel was unable to articulate a specific reason why emails were not relevant and represented to the court that he had not actually reviewed any of the emails at issue to determine their relevancy, court denied plaintiff?s motion for protective order and granted defendants? motion to compel production of emails

Nature of Case: Breach of loan agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Email of current and former BLX employees

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