FRCP 26(b)(2)(C) Limitations – Page 9 – Electronic Discovery Law

Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. V. Earl Scheib, Inc., No. 11-CV-0788-GPC (WVG), 2013 WL 485846 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Defendant presented evidence that the cost of retrieving the requested information?not including the cost of attorney review or the time spent coordinating the production–was equal to the amount in controversy, the court concluded that the requests at issue were unduly burdensome and found that even where Plaintiff had explained the relevancy of the information sought, ?the expense associated with responding ? [was] too great when weighed against what is at stake in the litigation?; court?s analysis included consideration of inaccessibility based on the costs of production and noted that other discovery was available

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys. LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-296, 2013 WL 682848 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 25, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel and ordered production of a ?complete copy? of Defendant?s database, despite noting that the request appeared ?facially intrusive,? where the information was ?highly relevant? to the claims in the case, where Defendant failed to provide sufficient information regarding the allegedly proprietary contents of the database, and where an attorneys? eyes only designation was sufficient to protect any trade secrets, etc.

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Athome Care, Inc. v. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc?y, No. 1:12-cv-053-BLW, 2013 WL 1819691 (D. Idaho Apr. 30, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court addressed Plaintiff?s motion to compel production of metadata and, noting that Defendant ?would have produced the requested metadata but for an inadvertent change to the creation date on certain documents,? indicated that the real question was ?how to resolve that mistake, which essentially requires the court to apply the Rule 26(b)(2)(C) balancing test;? court considered fact that Defendant ?created the problem? although not in bad faith (?accidents happen?) and further found that the burden of production was not ?all that great? and ordered the production of the requested metadata

Nature of Case: Breach of contract/licensing agreement

Electronic Data Involved: metadata

Thornton v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, No. 12-CV-298-JED-FHM, 2013 WL 1890706 (N.D. Okla. May 3, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendant sought to shift costs based on the expected expense of reviewing and producing the emails which was estimated to be more than $500,000, the court acknowledged that cost could be a legitimate basis for cost shifting under Rule 26(b)(2)(C), but found that the burden of the requested discovery did not outweigh its likely benefit and was not disproportionate to the case and also noted that the defendant had not established that ?a particular level of review is necessary in this case or that a ?claw back? agreement or [FRE] 502 order would not reduce or eliminate the estimated costs?

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Mazza v. Quicken Loans, Inc., No. 1:12 CV 142, 2013 WL 2296657 (N.D. W. Va. May 24, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought relevant information but failed to sufficiently limit the scope of her requests temporally or geographically, court agreed with defendant that the requests as written were overly broad but found that defendant had not made a sufficient showing that the burden of responding to modified, limited requests would outweigh the benefit or that cost shifting was required and thus ordered defendants to respond to the requests, subject to the courts temporal, geographic, and fact-specific limitations

Nature of Case: Predatory lending

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Lee v Stonebridge, No. 11-cv-43 RS (JSC), 2013 WL 3889209 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied Defendant?s motion to conduct a forensic inspection of Plaintiff?s iphone where there was no dispute that the at-issue phone was not the phone that received the at-issue text message and where Plaintiff?s expert indicated that the relevant iphone had been backed up on plaintiff?s personal computer; court denied motion to conduct a forensic inspection of Plaintiff?s personal computer where Defendant failed to demonstrate that the information sought was not reasonably accessible through other sources (e.g., the co-defendant that allegedly sent the at-issue text message), where plaintiff had offered to search for whatever information defendant sought, where plaintiff had already provided considerable data, and where Defendant?s request was essentially a fishing expedition; court reasoned that ?absent a showing of misconduct? raising questions regarding the completeness of Plaintiff?s expert?s search, no inspection by Defendant was warranted and ordered the parties to cooperate to create a protocol for plaintiff?s expert to use

Electronic Data Involved: iphone, contents of personal computer, text-message

Fed. Deposit Ins. Co. v. Brudnicki, No. 5:12-cv-00398-RS-GRJ, 2013 WL 2948098 (N.D. Fla. June 14, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where discovery would be asymmetrical and Plaintiff would be producing the majority of documents in the case, court approved a protocol that would require the parties to cooperate to develop search terms to identify potentially relevant documents to be uploaded to a database for Defendant?s review for the purpose of identifying documents to be produced and which would require Defendant to pay $.06 per page produced and $225 monthly for each gigabyte uploaded into the database; court held cost-shifting was appropriate where Plaintiff had already identified and collected the potentially responsive information at great expense and compared the $.06 charge to photocopying costs in traditional discovery and also cited and considered the factors of Rule 26(b)(2)(C), which provide authority for cost shifting and ?strongly supported? the Plaintiff?s proposed ESI protocol

Nature of Case: Action against Bank’s former directors for negligence and gross negligence related to approval of 11 transactions

Electronic Data Involved: ESI in FDIC database

Jewell v. Aaron?s Inc., No. 1:12-CV-05630-AT, 2013 WL 3770837 (N.D. Ga. July 19, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court declined to approve Defendant?s discovery request for 87 opt-in Plaintiffs to produce all content of websites, blogs, or social media sites posted by them during work hours for a four year period where Defendant failed to make a ?sufficient predicate? showing that the information sought was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and where the request was overly burdensome in light of the ?remote relevance of the information? sought

Nature of Case: Collective Action

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of websites, blogs, social media (e.g., Facebook) posted by Plaintiffs during work hours for a four year period

Soffer v. Five Mile Capital Partners, LLC, No. 2:12-cv-01407-JAD-GWF, 2013 WL 4499011 (D. Nev. Aug. 19, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court indicated that dispute over whether to compel Defendants to conduct additional searches in an expanded date range turned on Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) and the question of whether the burden outweighed the likely benefit but, citing Plaintiff?s prior offer to more narrowly tailor the search terms to be utilized and to contribute to the reasonable costs of Defendants? review, ordered the parties to meet to attempt to reach agreement on a more focused search and to negotiate a reasonable cost sharing agreement and indicated that the court would consider shifting ?an appropriate share of the costs of production? once a determination of the cost was made

Nature of Case: Interference with a contract and prospective economic advantage, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

James v. UMG Recordings, Inc., No. 11-cv-01613-SI (MEJ), 2013 WL 5978322 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs could surely foresee the need to manipulate royalty data but did not specify production in electronic form, and defendant had already twice produced the documents and argued that production of electronically formatted royalty statements would require creation of new documents not currently in existence, court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of the data in electronic format, stating that plaintiffs’ proffered justification that Excel format would be more convenient “falls far short of the mark”; court further denied plaintiffs’ request for receipts data, finding that the burden of reprogramming royalty database and creating new software to extract information far outweighed usefulness of ordering production given that plaintiffs stated they could discern the data by extrapolation

Nature of Case: Consolidated putative class action for breach of contract and other claims filed by recording artists and producers who alleged that defendant underpaid royalties on digital downloads of plaintiffs’ recordings

Electronic Data Involved: Royalty statements in Excel format, receipts from download transactions with vendors

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