Key Insight: The burden of production and utility of the employee badge scans sought by plaintiffs outweighed the benefit to plaintiffs of analyzing the information because: (1) the timekeeping software did not have a reporting function for timestamps and collecting the information would require at least 22,000 hours of manual work; (2) the software only contained records for some months of 2019, less than a quarter of the four-year class period; and (3) the timestamps do not definitively establish the time at which the event happened. Plaintiffs were only entitled to the data in the form in which it is ordinarily maintained. Further, plaintiffs’ request for another copy of defendants’ payroll data would be needlessly cumulative as defendants had provided alternative solutions to plaintiffs’ data extraction and reporting issues. Lastly, although the magistrate judge’s order did not explicitly cite to Rule 26(b)(2), the court’s reasoning clearly fell under Rule 26(b)(2)(B), which permitted the court to deny the production of ESI where the information is “not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost” irrespective of whether the magistrate judge had analyzed all the proportionality factors contained in Rule 26(b)(1).
Nature of Case: Labor and Employment
Electronic Data Involved: Timekeeping Data