Proportionality | Electronic Discovery Law

MP Nexlevel of California, Inc. v. CVIN LLC, No. 1:14-cv-00288-LJO-EPG, 2016 WL 1408459 (E.D. Cal. April 11, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court found that the at-issue discovery was not required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and declined to compel production of every document ?referring or relating? to Plaintiff?s ?designated Responsible Managing Employee? for all 11 of Plaintiff?s California projects where the court determined that the relevance was minimal, where both parties ?appeared to agree? that the request would require ?a search for every document to or from [the employee]? and Plaintiff alleged that many documents were not electronically searchable, and where the court recognized that ordering such production could cause a ?chilling effect? that may ?discourage [construction] companies from filing a lawsuit merely to avoid the discovery costs?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI and other records “referring or relating” to specified employee

Alaska Elec. Pension Fund v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 14-CV-7126 (JMF), 2016 WL 6779901 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Plaintiffs? broad request for documents previously produced by Defendants in prior investigations or produced to or received from any government agency, regulator, department, etc. related to the issues in the current investigation failed to withstand scrutiny to establish relevance beyond merely ?bear[ing] on? the issues in the investigation, particularly where Plaintiffs failed to point to any specific information that that would be found solely in the unproduced documents and not in the 1.5 million documents Defendants did produce from prior investigations (?At bottom, then, Plaintiffs? entire relevancy argument hinges on a general contention that every communication and work product related to the regulatory investigations is ?likely? to contain additional relevant information. But that sort of conclusory claim is insufficient to support such an expansive discovery request.?); court also concluded that the requested discovery was not proportional, but denied the motion without prejudice, allowing plaintiff an opportunity to renew their motion with ?narrower, more proper discovery requests.?

Nature of Case: Conspiracy to manipulate ISDAfix rates (government investigation)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI previously produced to government, all documents sent to/received from government related to issues in underlying investigation (including correspondence, subpoenas, CIDs, etc.)

Vaigasi v. Solow Mgmt. Corp., No. 11 Civ. 5088 (RMB)(HBP), 2016 WL 616386 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiff?s motion to compel a response to his second set of document requests (consisting of 168 pages and 1,027 individual requests), noting several procedural and ?substantive defects,? including that Plaintiff?s requests were ?grossly irrelevant? and sought ?numerous documents that ha[d] nothing to do with the claims or defenses? and disproportional to the case (citing Defendant?s prior production of approximately 1,000 pages of documents), even despite the ?strong federal policy against employment discrimination?; addressing defendant?s motion for sanctions, court concluded that ?Plaintiff?s Second Document Request was unquestionably prepared and served in bad faith and in a conscious effort to impose an unreasonable burden on defendants? and cited Plaintiff?s numerous document requests, violation of two prior discovery orders and other ?obstructive behavior? and granted a protective order relieving defendant of the obligation to respond and ordered that Plaintiff was prohibited from offering or using any document not already produced, that Plaintiff must submit to a medical exam (as was previously ordered) or suffer dismissal of his case, and that Plaintiff would be liable for the attorneys fees incurred by Defendants in addressing the motions resolved in this opinion

Nature of Case: Employment litigation (Title VII, Age Discrimination, ADA, etc.)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

FTC v. Directv, Inc., No. 15-cv-01129-HSG (MEJ), 2016 WL 3351945 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Following the parties? court-ordered meet and confer to achieve proportionality in Defendant?s requests for production of complaints from FTC customers regarding Defendant?s competitors, Defendant reduced the number of competitors about which it sought information from 10 to 3, but court also approved Plaintiff?s proposal to produce only a random sampling, even from the reduced list of competitors, where the proposal ?more closely comport[ed] with Rule 26?s demand for proportionality? noting that the relevance of the at-issue materials was ?largely speculative?

Electronic Data Involved: Customer complaints submitted to FTC re: Defendant’s competitors

In re Disposable Contact Lens AntiTrust Litig., No. 3:15-md-2626-J-20JRK, 2016 WL 6518660 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where the ?potential relevance? of the information sought was ?essentially undisputed,? but where Defendant claimed to have already spent $700,000 on discovery and that the request for 18 additional custodians could result in an expenditure of at least $1.5 million, court noted that the parties? dispute was essentially a question of proportionality and concluded a that two additional ?upper-management custodians? were warranted (as opposed to the seven requested) and also found that a sample of four sales manages was appropriate (as opposed to the eleven requested); as to Class Plaintiffs? request for a ?hit list? generated by applying the agreed-upon search terms to the collected materials, the court reasoned that in light of the number of custodians and the parties? agreement as to search terms, such a list seemed ?less valuable that it might otherwise be,? but ordered that if one was automatically generated, it should be produced

Nature of Case: Class Action

Electronic Data Involved: Additional Custodians

In re Fluoroquinolone Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL. No. 15-2642 (JRT), 2016 WL 4045414 (D. Minn. July 20, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court ruled that defendants may, under the proportionality factors in 26(b)(1), limit their search to databases and central repositories rather than engage in custodial searches for all cases at the Defendant Fact Sheet (DFS) stage of the MDL due to the ?significant burden of the proposed custodial-file searches? and the less-than-certain benefits of such searches.? The Court noted Defendant?s acknowledgement that custodial searches would likely be ?warranted for a narrower group of cases at a later stage? and that plaintiffs were free to seek permission to engage in further discovery if information available in the structured databases was insufficient.

Nature of Case: Products Liability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., No. C14-01351 RAJ, 2016 WL 1597102 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 20, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Motion for protective order granted where requested information was not relevant to claims or defenses plead and thus was outside of the scope of discovery

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, database

E.E.O.C. v. The Amer. Coal Co., No. 3:15-cv-01293-SMY-PMF, 2016 WL 1639682 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 26, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where non-party argued that subpoena exceeded scope of EEOC?s authority because it sought information irrelevant to the claim of sex discrimination (e.g., information re: race) and was unduly burdensome because it would take the single HR Officer approximately 500 hours to respond and take her away from other important work for the corporation, the court found that the information sought was relevant (reasoning that the standard of relevance is broad and ?generous? and that the information could ?shed light on possible discriminatory hiring practices and thereby, lead to the discovery of admissible evidence?) and that the burden did not outweigh the benefit, reasoning that ?[[o]ther than the fact that its employment records are kept in paper format in southern Illinois, [the non-party] has not provided any reason as to why its corporate human resources department cannot assist in responding to the subpoena or why it could not hire temporary staff to assist.?

Nature of Case: Employment litigation: sex discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy

Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Chemoil Corp., 15-2199, 2016 WL 9051173 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 19, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court denied Defendant?s motion to compel production of emails from Plaintiff?s former employee where Plaintiff?s initial production included some communications from the at-issue employee, where Plaintiff had already conducted a second search that did not yield additional documents, where the emails of the former employee had been moved off of active servers thus requiring the initiation of disaster recovery protocols to conduct an additional search, and where the emails of other parties to the potentially relevant communications remained on the active servers and had also been searched; court also noted that Defendant had deposed the former employee for 6 hours

Electronic Data Involved: Email of former employee

Boyington v Percheron Field Servs., LLC, No. 3:14-CV-90, 2016 WL 6068813 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 14, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Plaintiffs sought to compel production of all emails sent to or from any of the Plaintiffs through a Percheron account. The Court found the emails were relevant because they may shed light on informal work policies, hours worked, and serve as a potential cross-reference to the other records kept by Defendant. Analyzing proportionality, the Court concluded that the importance of the issues (to the Plaintiffs), the amount in controversy (alleged to be ?in excess of several million dollars?), the resources of the parties, the parties? relative access to the information and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues weighed in favor of Plaintiffs/production. Regarding whether the burden of discovery outweighed the benefit, the Court acknowledged Defendant?s claim that the review ?would likely cost $735,000-$798,964 and take a team of 20 attorneys 12 weeks to complete,? but reasoned that the Court?s refusal to compel production of certain email categories would lessen the estimated costs and that Defendant?s inability to provide certain data had caused Plaintiffs to have to ?puzzle together damages? and concluded that the request did not ?run afoul? of proportionality. The court also relied on Defendants prior agreement to produce the emails. Addressing Plaintiffs? motion to compel information regarding Defendant?s preservation efforts, the court ordered production of the names of those that received litigation holds and related information, but declined to order the litigation holds themselves.

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, Information re: litigation hold notices

Tag: Proportionality