Tag: Proportionality

1
Diesel Power Source et al. v. Crazy Carl’s Turbos et al., No. 14-826 (D. Utah Feb. 23, 2017)
2
Lombardo v. Government Emps. Ins. Co., No. 3:16cv392/MCR/EMT (N.D. Fla. Feb. 23, 2017).
3
Simon v. Northwestern Univ., No. 1:150CV01433, 2017 WL 467677 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2017)
4
Hibbett Patient Care, LLC v. Pharmacists Mut. Ins. Co., No. CA 16-00231-WS-C (S.D. Ala. Jan. 26, 2017).
5
Solo v United Parcel Serv., Co., No. 14-12719, 2017 WL 85832 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 10, 2017)
6
Brand Services, LLC v. Irex Corp. (E.D. La., 2017)
7
Scott v. United States Postal Services, No. 15-712-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La. Dec. 27, 2016).
8
Moore v. Lowe?s Home Centers, LLC, No. 14-1459 RJB, 2016 WL 687111 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 19, 2016)
9
Kissing Camels Surgery Center, LLC v. Centura Health Corp., No. 12-cv-03012-WJM-NYW, 2016 WL 277721 (D. Colo. Jan. 22, 2016)
10
Duhigg v. Goodwill Indus., No. 8:15CV91, 2016 WL 4991480 (D. Neb. Sept. 16, 2016)

Diesel Power Source et al. v. Crazy Carl’s Turbos et al., No. 14-826 (D. Utah Feb. 23, 2017)

Key Insight: Plaintiff requested Defendant run 72 “spelling variations” of 5 terms allowed by prior court order. Court denied and allowed 20, but did not apply sanctions yet.

Nature of Case: Libel/Slander

Electronic Data Involved: Various ESI

Keywords: search terms; sanctions; cooperation

View Case Opinion

Lombardo v. Government Emps. Ins. Co., No. 3:16cv392/MCR/EMT (N.D. Fla. Feb. 23, 2017).

Key Insight: personnel file related to settlement and claims handling was ordered to be produced with some confidentiality and redactions to protect personal information of adjuster.

Nature of Case: bad faith

Electronic Data Involved: adjusters personnel file

Keywords: personnel file

View Case Opinion

Simon v. Northwestern Univ., No. 1:150CV01433, 2017 WL 467677 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2017)

Key Insight: Compelling ESI prematurely is not needed if the records will be preserved throughout litigation

Nature of Case: malicious prosecution

Electronic Data Involved: emails, documents

Keywords: Scope of ESI search terms, willingness to produce

View Case Opinion

Hibbett Patient Care, LLC v. Pharmacists Mut. Ins. Co., No. CA 16-00231-WS-C (S.D. Ala. Jan. 26, 2017).

Key Insight: Plaintiff requested information related to outside counsel’s evaluation of claims. Court granted, but limited original request.

Nature of Case: Insurance breach of contract and bad faith

Electronic Data Involved: Various documents related to claims investigations; primarily related to outside counsel evaluations.

Keywords: scope; outside counsel; evaluation of claim

View Case Opinion

Solo v United Parcel Serv., Co., No. 14-12719, 2017 WL 85832 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 10, 2017)

Key Insight: proportionality

Nature of Case: class action

Electronic Data Involved: backup tapes

Keywords: undue burden, statistical sampling, restoration, reasonably accessible, cooperation, interrogatory, relevance

View Case Opinion

Brand Services, LLC v. Irex Corp. (E.D. La., 2017)

Key Insight: How much access of a party’s electronic information system does rule 34(a) give a party?

Nature of Case: Trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Responsive documents

Keywords: ESI protocol, Forensic images, overly broad

View Case Opinion

Scott v. United States Postal Services, No. 15-712-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La. Dec. 27, 2016).

Key Insight: Defendants request for social media posts was too broad and needed to be even more specifically directed to claims in case.

Nature of Case: personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Social Media Posts

Keywords: social media; scope

View Case Opinion

Moore v. Lowe?s Home Centers, LLC, No. 14-1459 RJB, 2016 WL 687111 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 19, 2016)

Key Insight: Court declined to compel Defendant to conduct additional searches of witnesses? email accounts using 88 new search terms and excluding Plaintiff?s name finding that the request was ?overly broad and not proportional to the case? and reasoning that Plaintiff relied upon a multi-plaintiff case to justify her position and that she had not provided specifics regarding what she reasonably expected to find or shown that the information could not be found through other means, such as by asking additional questions of witnesses already scheduled for deposition ; court ordered Defendant to produce the relevant policies it operated under where Defendant claimed emails were deleted in the ordinary course of business according to Company policy, and that Defendant should also provide Plaintiff with the date of the deletion and the name of the person who made the deletion or the process of deletion, if known

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Kissing Camels Surgery Center, LLC v. Centura Health Corp., No. 12-cv-03012-WJM-NYW, 2016 WL 277721 (D. Colo. Jan. 22, 2016)

Key Insight: Where Plaintiffs objected to Defendants? ?duplicative? requests and claimed they had already produced responsive documents but provided Defendants with no guidance as to where such documents could be found within the voluminous production, the court acknowledged that it would ?ordinarily? conclude that Plaintiffs had no obligation to identify responsive documents but, citing the volume of data at issue, the ?asymmetry of information regarding the production between Plaintiffs,? the time the case had been pending, and the fact that additional discovery would be required, the court concluded that Plaintiff should provide additional information and ordered that Defendants would be permitted to identify ten categories of requested documents that Plaintiffs claimed to be duplicative and that Plaintiffs must then identify documents responsive to those requests

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Duhigg v. Goodwill Indus., No. 8:15CV91, 2016 WL 4991480 (D. Neb. Sept. 16, 2016)

Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiff?s motion to compel the production of emails containing Plaintiff?s name as a search hit and granted in part Defendant?s motion for a protective order where Defendant established that the emails were not reasonably accessible in light of the time and minimum costs of production, estimated at $45,825, and where the court also found they were not proportional to the needs of the case; although the court found Plaintiff?s proposed terms overbroad (her name) the court disagreed with Defendant?s time limitation on its own search for emails where prior discriminatory acts, even if not actionable, could be used as background evidence and ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding appropriate search terms to be used to search the accounts of 3 custodians over a 4 year period

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

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