Close
Enter your
text here

Production

Court Grants Motion to Quash Subpoena From Defunct Non-Party Entity: eDiscovery Case Law

In Swift Beef Co. v. Alex Lee, Inc., No. 18-0105-EFM-KGG, (D. Kan. Oct. 31, 2018), Kansas Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale, finding that “the information requested by the subpoena has limited relevance and is not proportional to the needs of the case” and that the non-party entity (Vantage Foods) had established that its production would be unduly burdensome, granted Vantage’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas and denied the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena as moot.

Case Background

In this contract dispute involving a meat processing and packaging plant located in Lenoir, North Carolina, Vantage had previously operated the Lenoir plant that is currently owned by the defendant and the subject of the underlying lawsuit. Vantage has no contractual or business relationships with either of the parties in the underlying lawsuit and “exists essentially as a defunct entity”.  Nonetheless, the plaintiff served a subpoena on Vantage on May 29, 2018.  Vantage contended that this initial subpoena was “procedurally defective and substantively flawed.”  As a result, the plaintiff served a second subpoena on June 12 to address those issues.

While Vantage conceded that the “procedural defects were corrected by Swift’s issuance of [the] modified subpoena….”, it argued that both subpoenas “should be quashed in their entirety and Vantage Foods should not be required to produce any of the items Swift requests.”  The court chose to consider the first subpoena moot as it was replaced by the modified subpoena.  Nonetheless, according to Vantage, the modified subpoena consists of “twenty-five sweeping requests for documents covering almost every conceivable aspect of Vantage Food’s obsolete business relationship with Alex Lee and Alex Lee’s subsidiaries.”  Vantage argued that its contracts with the defendant “are separate and completely unrelated to the disputes between Swift and Alex Lee, [thus] they cannot be used to support or defend any of the contract claims in this case.”  Also, as a defunct entity, Vantage estimated it would take hundreds of hours to complete a comprehensive search for documents responsive to its requests.

The plaintiff countered that the categories of requested information “are targeted to seek information relevant to Alex Lee’s counterclaims and arguments raised in the North Carolina Lawsuit.”  The plaintiff also argued that “Vantage has provided no evidence that responding to the subpoena would be unduly burdensome.”

Judge’s Ruling

Referencing Fed.R.Civ.P. 45, Judge Gale stated: “The Court agrees with Vantage that the relevance to the issues in the underlying lawsuit of this comparison between performances of different entities (one of which is not a party to this law suit) during different time periods is suspect…Given the burden imposed on Vantage and proportionality of the information requested to the needs of the case, discussed infra, the Court finds that Swift has not established the relevance of the information requested.”

Judge Gale also disagreed with the plaintiff’s take on Vantage’s burden, stating: “the subpoena is unduly burdensome on its face. Vantage’s ‘relative access’ to the information is tenuous. As a defunct entity, Vantage has limited resources, particularly in light of the burdensomeness of complying with the subpoena. The limited relevance of the information means it has limited ‘importance…in resolving the issues’ present in this lawsuit. Further, Vantage contends that ‘to the extent any of the documents requested in the Subpoenas are relevant to this case, they were likely stored on Alex Lee’s systems and Alex Lee should have access to them.’”

Stating “The Court will not compel compliance with a subpoena that appears to constitute a fishing expedition”, Judge Gale granted Vantage’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas and denied the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena as moot.

So, what do you think?  Was this a fishing expedition or did the plaintiff have a valid right to request documents from Vantage?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Rules on Dispute over Native File Format Production and Metadata: eDiscovery Case Law

In Metlife Inv’rs. USA Ins. Co. v. Lindsey, No. 2:16-CV-97 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 25, 2018), Indiana Magistrate Judge John E. Martin granted the motion of the defendants/counter plaintiffs (defendants) to compel the plaintiff/counter-defendant (plaintiff) to produce all responsive documents in the form in which they are maintained in the usual course of business (i.e., native files with metadata) and also ordered the defendants to file an itemization of costs and fees, including attorney’s fees, incurred in making the Motion to Compel.

Case Background

In this case where the plaintiff sought rescission of a life insurance policy issued to one of the defendants based on her alleged misrepresentations during the application process.  Throughout written discovery, the plaintiff generally produced documents in non-searchable PDF format, which it claimed is the “most usable format” appropriate for the information. The defendants repeatedly objected, arguing that the plaintiff was obligated to produce the documents as they are maintained in the normal course of business, i.e., in their “native” format.

The defendants identified several electronic platforms in which the plaintiff kept its documents in the usual course of business, but the plaintiff indicated that the additional data that the defendants would receive from production in native format was irrelevant, and claimed that it was not obliged to produce it, leading to the defendants’ motion.

Judge’s Ruling

Noting that “MetLife concedes that the method in which it produced the documents is not how they are kept ‘in the usual course of business,’ as required by Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i)” and that MetLife “cites no authority showing that this satisfies its obligations under Rule 34”, Judge Martin also stated that “MetLife’s production was not consistent with what the parties discussed at the beginning of discovery. On July 28, 2016, the parties filed their Report of Parties’ Planning Meeting, which stated: ‘The parties anticipate making a preliminary production of ESI by hard copy…All ESI produced electronically will be produced in native format to the extent possible.” (emphasis added). After MetLife made its initial production in response to Defendants’ first requests for production, Defendants objected to the format of the documents, but MetLife apparently ignored the objections and continued to produce in PDF format.”

Judge Martin also stated: “MetLife says that production in native format would not yield relevant information, because in its view the ‘only remaining issue’ in the case is whether it had a duty to investigate the information in the policy application prior to issuing it. However, MetLife has not shown that the requests fall outside of the legitimate scope of discovery… If the Court were to apply this standard, information about who accessed the application information – which might be visible in native form – could be relevant to whether that person should have investigated further.”

As a result, Judge Martin granted the defendants’ motion to compel the plaintiff to produce all responsive documents in native format and also ordered the defendants to file an itemization of costs and fees, including attorney’s fees, incurred in making the Motion to Compel.  However, Judge Martin also said this:

“Finally, although Defendants are entitled to the previously produced documents in native form, the Court clarifies that they are not entitled to all metadata. Some of Defendants’ filings could be interpreted to argue that Defendants are entitled to all metadata related to the documents previously produced. In general, metadata must be specifically requested in advance, and Defendants did not do that…While production in native format will inevitably result in the exchange of some metadata, Defendants are not entitled to all metadata generally, except to the extent it appears with the documents as kept in the usual course of business.”

Hmmm…

So, what do you think?  Should metadata be requested in advance or does the request for “responsive documents in the form in which they are maintained in the usual course of business” assume the inclusion of metadata (assuming that involves production of native format documents)?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Rejects Plaintiffs’ “Mindlessly Deficient” Objections to Native Format Production: eDiscovery Case Law

In McDonnel Grp., LLC v. Starr Surplus Lines Ins. Co. et al., No. 18-1380 (E.D. La. Oct. 3, 2018), Louisiana Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to compel, granting the defendants’ requests for the plaintiffs to produce construction schedules in native format, to identify responsive materials already produced to other specified defendants’ requests and to provide a privilege log for any documents withheld based on privilege to those requests.  Judge Wilkinson denied the defendants’ request for attorney’s fees and other expenses incurred in connection with the defendants’ motion.

Case Background

In this dispute between a general construction contractor and its insurers, the defendants sought production of construction schedules in native format, but the plaintiff asserted that it had produced all responsive materials in PDF format, even though the defendants specified production of “all construction schedules for the Project in their native format (as native files)”, according to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(C), which provides that a requesting party “may specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information (“ESI”) is to be produced.”  As the responding party, plaintiff was required to “state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons.”

Judge’s Ruling

As Judge Wilkinson noted (while erroneously referring to the plaintiff as defendants a couple of times): “In their written response to Request No. 34, defendants(sic) complied with none of these requirements. Instead of asserting specific objections or stating that it intended to produce these clearly relevant and discoverable materials in some form other than the requested native format, defendants asserted a mindlessly deficient, boilerplate, stonewalling objection that the request was ‘vague, overly broad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.’…By failing to object to production in native format, defendants(sic) waived that objection… Such information in the construction schedule context, with its frequent alterations, change orders, and time sensitive but often disturbed deadlines, is relevant. The PDF files chosen by plaintiff for production are merely pictures of the materials that do not provide metadata.”

Continuing, he wrote: “Plaintiff offers no proof that production of the requested construction schedules in native format would be unduly burdensome or expensive or that native files are not the way it ordinarily maintains the construction schedules. Instead, it relies upon Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(iii), which provides that “[a] party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.” Plaintiff dispossessed itself of this protection when it failed to object to production of its native files in its written response or state in its written response that it would produce all requested materials in PDF form, as required in Rule 34(b)(2)(D). To permit a responding party, in the face of a request that ESI be produced in a particular form, arbitrarily to choose some other form, would disrupt and undermine the orderly request/response/objection/confer structure and requirements of the remainder of the Rule concerning ESI. For these reasons, the motion is granted as to Request No. 34. Plaintiff must produce all native files sought in this request, together with a new written response, signed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g), clearly stating that it has done so.”

Judge Wilkinson also classified the plaintiff’s written responses to other requests as “deficient” and ordered the plaintiff to “provide new written responses to these requests, clearly stating that it has produced all non-privileged responsive materials in its possession, custody or control, signed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g), and identify those responsive materials by Bates number or other specific identifier. If plaintiff is withholding any materials responsive to these requests on privilege or work product grounds, it must provide the log required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5).”  However, Judge Wilkinson denied the defendants’ request for attorney fees and other expenses incurred in connection with the defendants’ motion.

So, what do you think?  Should failure to provide specific objections to form of production requests automatically waive those objections?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Denies Party’s Request to Produce in Native Format Instead of TIFF: eDiscovery Case Law

In the case IN RE SYNGENTA AG MIR 162 CORN LITIGATION, MDL 2591, No. 16-2788-JWL (D. Kan. Sept. 25, 2018), Kansas Magistrate Judge James P. O’Hara, stating that “there is no dispute that documents in TIFF format are easier to work with and enable depositions and court proceedings to run more smoothly”, denied the request of party Louis Dreyfus Company Grains Merchandising LLC (LDC) to relieve it from the production requirements of the case’s ESI Protocol Order to produce electronically stored information (ESI) in TIFF image file format and instead allow LDC to produce in native format.

Case Background

In this multi-district corn litigation, on August 16, 2018, the Court ordered LDC to complete its document production by September 6.  On August 31, LDC sought an extension, asserting that technical complications and infrastructure limitations made it impossible to meet the deadline. There was no mention in LDC’s motion or supporting briefs of any difficulty LDC would have producing the documents in TIFF format as required by the ESI Protocol Order. The court granted LDC’s request and ordered LDC to produce “as many documents as possible (which should be most)” by September 28; and to produce the remainder of the documents by October 12.

On September 5 and 11, LDC produced a large number of documents in native format, stating it did so in order to get the documents to Syngenta as expeditiously as possible, asserting that converting documents to TIFF adds “substantial time to production.”  Syngenta complained to LDC about the production format on September 11, noting that production of documents in native format—with only the first page of a document numbered, rather than page-by-page bates numbering—creates confusion when a party wishes to reference a particular page of a document during depositions, in court filings, and at trial.

In a September 24 letter brief, LDC asked the court, for the first time, to relieve it from the production requirements of the ESI Protocol Order, arguing that the exception to the ESI production protocol applied because LDC “has been required to produce a huge number of documents under extreme time pressure” and characterizing the lack of Bates stamps on documents for depositions as a “minor inconvenience” to Syngenta.  LDC stated it “is converting these files to TIFF format, but Syngenta is unreasonably insisting that all documents be in TIFF before the deadline.”

Judge’s Ruling

Judge O’Hara stated: “LDC’s arguments are unpersuasive. First, there is no dispute that documents in TIFF format are easier to work with and enable depositions and court proceedings to run more smoothly. As recognized by the Sedona Conference, they allow a party to refer to particular portions of a document—perhaps in designating confidentiality or directing a witness to particular language—by page number.

Second, the ESI Protocol Order requires a party seeking to deviate from the image/TIFF-format production to “promptly” notify the requesting party as soon as it identifies a source of data to which the protocol should not apply (because it would be unduly burdensome or impractical). Here, LDC did not notify Syngenta or the court before producing documents in native format. LDC made no mention of its perceived formatting production issue in its previous briefs addressing Syngenta’s proposed search terms or seeking extensions of the production deadlines.

Third, LDC has offered no evidence to support its “burdensome” and “impracticality” arguments. To the contrary, LDC informed Syngenta on September 14, 2018, that converting the native files in its previous document productions would take approximately two weeks. Thus, the first TIFF production should occur by the September 28, 2018 deadline for the majority of LDC’s documents. As for documents yet to be produced, LDC does not state how long producing them in the first instance in TIFF format (as opposed to native format with a subsequent conversion) might take its vendor. Accordingly, the court is not convinced that it is impossible for LDC to meet the October 12, 2018 deadline for final production.”

Noting that “the court is determined to keep this case moving forward” to keep depositions on schedule, Judge O’Hara denied LDC’s request that it be permitted to complete its document production in native format only by the October 12, 2018 deadline.

So, what do you think?  Should the court have given LDC more leeway or time to produce the documents in TIFF format?  Should the parties have been able to work out a document numbering scheme for documents to be referenced in depositions?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Compels Non-Party Insurance Agents to Produce Text Messages in TCPA Case: eDiscovery Case Law

In Gould v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, No. 4:17 CV 2305 RWS (E.D. Mo. Aug. 30, 2018), Missouri District Judge Rodney W. Sippel granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel two non-party Farmers Insurance agents to comply with subpoenas and produce documents pertaining to text messages that they allegedly sent to potential customers, rejecting the agents’ argument that compliance with the subpoenas would violate their Fifth Amendment right against compelled, self-incriminating testimony.

Case Background

In this Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case, the plaintiff alleged that, at the direction of the defendant insurance companies, non-party Farmers Insurance agents James Lohse and Joe Ridgway sent text messages to her without her consent, in violation of the TCPA. The plaintiff sought to represent similarly situated plaintiffs who received messages without their consent marketing certain Farmers Insurance products.

To obtain information on potential plaintiffs and the alleged TCPA violations generally, the plaintiff served subpoenas on the non-party agents, which requested that the agents produce phone numbers of potential customers to which text messages were sent; the content of those text messages; any contracts, correspondence, invoices, and payment records the agents have with other entities that facilitated the alleged spam texts or provided the potential customers’ numbers; documents concerning any purchase of an insurance policy by the recipients of these texts; and any documents reflecting that the recipients of these texts consented to receive those messages.

The non-party agents objected and refused to produce documents responsive to these requests, initially arguing that such discovery was inappropriate until the parties’ resolved an initial question of consent. After the defendants’ declined to file a motion summary judgment on the issue of consent, the agents changed their objections, stating that compelling their production of the requested records would violate their Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination, and that the plaintiff’s requests were overly broad and burdensome. The plaintiff moved to compel the production, and the non-party agents moved for a confidentiality order.  The non-party agents argued that their answers to the plaintiff’s production requests would tend to incriminate them because the call logs in question could show a violation of 47 U.SC. § 227(b)(1).

Judge’s Ruling

Noting that the Fifth Amendment “privilege applies specifically to testimony, and not the production of documents, per se”, Judge Sippel stated that “where the documents themselves are incriminating, but their possession, control, and authenticity does not incriminate, the privilege would not apply.”  Continuing, he said:

“In this circumstance, the Agents’ mere possession, production, or authentication of call logs and other documents is not the act that would tend to incriminate them. The Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination accordingly does not protect against disclosure of the requested documents because of the ‘settled proposition that a person may be required to produce specific documents even though they contain incriminating assertions of fact or belief because the creation of those documents was not ‘compelled’ within the meaning of the privilege.’…The Agents also argue that Gould’s production request is overbroad and burdensome. I disagree. The documents that Gould requests all pertain to whether the Agents texted potential consumers without their consent, and if so, how they did that.”

As a result, Judge Sippel granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel and denied the non-party agents’ motion for a confidentiality order.

So, what do you think?  Should production of potentially incriminating documents be protected under the Fifth Amendment?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Rules that Defendant’s Boilerplate Objections Results in Waiver of Those Objections: eDiscovery Case Law

In Halleen v. Belk, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-55 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2018), Texas District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III granted the plaintiffs’ motions in part, ruling that the defendant had waived its objections to the plaintiffs’ RFPs and Interrogatories by including “subject to” or boilerplate language in its responses and also granted the plaintiffs’ request for ESI for identified corporate custodians and 30(b)(6) witnesses.

Case Background

In this Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) conditionally classified collective action against the defendant over failure to pay overtime compensation, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Electronically Stored Information, and Proper, Complete Answers to Interrogatories in March 2018.  In their motion to compel, the plaintiffs requested that the Court compel the defendant to (1) produce all documents responsive to plaintiffs’ Requests for Production (“RFP”), (2) provide complete answers to all Interrogatories, and (3) search and collect, via specified search terms and parameters, all electronically stored information (“ESI”) germane to identified corporate custodians and 30(b)(6) corporate representatives.

The plaintiffs argued that the defendant’s objections to their RFPs and Interrogatories were “deficient, inapplicable, and/or without merit”, but the defendant, whose responses and objections consisted of assertions of privilege or contain “subject to” or boilerplate language, responded that its objections were not only appropriate but necessary to protect itself from Plaintiffs’ abusive discovery requests.  The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant failed to provide a privilege log accompanying its objections, but the defendant contended that it was not withholding any information on the basis of privilege. The plaintiffs also sought an order compelling the defendant to produce ESI for identified corporate custodians and 30(b)(6) witnesses, referencing an exhibit which list search terms, sample percentages, and specific custodians.  In response, the defendant stated that the plaintiffs’ suggested search terms and requests were overly broad and contended that the parties were still working on agreed search terms and have yet to reach an impasse warranting a motion to compel.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to the defendant’s objections, Judge Mazzant ruled: “The Court finds that Defendant’s inclusion of ‘subject to and without waiving these objections’ is not supported by the federal rules and goes against the purposes of a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution…Further, by answering questions in such a manner Defendant fails to specify the scope of its answer in relation to the request. This makes it impossible for Plaintiffs or the Court to assess the sufficiency of the response. Therefore, Defendant has waived each objection by including ‘subject to’ or boilerplate language in its responses…As such, Defendant’s failure to specify specific grounds in the objections results in waiver of those objections…As a result, Defendant is ordered to provide amended responses as discussed below.”

With regard to the plaintiffs motion to compel production of specified ESI, Judge Mazzant ruled: “The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ request for ESI as specified in Exhibit 1 to its Reply is appropriate and should be granted. Although Defendant asserts that the parties are not at an impasse, the Court finds that given the ongoing discovery disputes and inability to cooperate the requested relief is necessary. Plaintiffs further request an order requiring Defendant to produce a randomized five percent of content on a share drive from 2013 to the present regarding various divisions of employees, including STMs. Because this request is raised for the first time in Plaintiffs’ reply, the Court declines to grant such relief at this time. Rather, the Court encourages Plaintiffs to confer with Defendant to reach a common ground on the amount of share drive that needs to be produced and for which specific divisions.”

As a result, the defendant was ordered to: 1) provide a privilege log for each assertion of privilege made within seven days, 2) serve upon plaintiffs’ counsel amended, corrected and complete sets of answers to plaintiffs’ Interrogatories and Requests for Production and 3) produce, in TIFF format, the ESI requested by the plaintiffs within two weeks.

So, what do you think?  Should parties be allowed to correct their “boilerplate” objections before they are waived?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Request for Native Re-Production by Defendant: eDiscovery Case Law

In Baker v. Santa Clara Univ., No. 17-cv-02213-EJD (VKD) (N.D. Cal. Jul. 31, 2018), California Magistrate Judge Virginia K. Demarchi denied, without prejudice, the plaintiff’s request for an order compelling production of electronically stored documents in native format, finding that the plaintiff “does not have a compelling reason for demanding that SCU (Santa Clara University) re-produce its entire responsive document production in native format simply because she might find something missing.”

Case Background

In this case involving claims of ongoing harassment, discrimination and retaliation by the plaintiff against her employer, the plaintiff served 54 requests for the production of documents in May 2018, with the 54th request to cover the format of production for all documents responsive to the other 53 requests, stating:

“With respect to each request, produce all documents in native format, including electronically stored information, metadata, and all metadata fields. Do not do anything that strips, removes, changes, limits, or otherwise alters the actual electronically stored information and metadata fields of any document that exists in an electronic format. Ensure that all such evidence remains intact, undisturbed, and is produced with each and every electronic document.”

The defendant produced over 2,500 pages of documents in response to the plaintiff’s document requests, but objected to Request No. 54 and produced all documents in .pdf format without metadata. The defendant did not specifically contend that the documents it produced are maintained in .pdf format in the usual course of its business.  As a result, the plaintiff asked for an order requiring the defendant to produce all responsive, electronically stored information in native format.  In requesting the re-production in native format, the plaintiff stated that native format “is very useful in identifying missing `parent emails'[,] `child emails'[,] hidden attachments[,] altered electronic records[,] and other electronic activity having the usefulness of establishing the existence of electronic records that have not been produced.”  In response, the defendant stated, without contradiction, that it attempted to engage the plaintiff’s counsel in a discussion of the search and production of electronically stored information more than a year ago in connection with the parties’ obligations under Rule 26(f), and that the plaintiff’s counsel did not meaningfully engage in the required discussion.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Demarchi observed that “Neither party has complied with the rules and guidelines that govern the production of electronically stored information”.  Noting that “Rule 34(b)(2) requires a party responding to document requests to object to a requested form of production for electronically stored information, and to state the form or forms of production it intends to use,” Judge Demarchi determined that “while SCU objected to the form of production demanded by Ms. Baker in response to Request No. 54, it did not specify the form of production it intended to use, and it apparently did not organize and label its production to correspond to the categories in Ms. Baker’s requests.”

As for the plaintiff, Judge Demarchi determined that the plaintiff “appears to have utterly failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 26(f) and this Court’s Guidelines for the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information by refusing to meaningfully engage in any discussions early in the case about the search and production of documents stored in electronic format.”

Stating that “The parties now find themselves in a dispute two weeks before the close of fact discovery that might have been avoided had they both complied with their respective and mutual discovery obligations”, Judge Demarchi, while acknowledging that the defendant “has not made any showing that re-producing some or all of its production in native format would be unduly burdensome” stated:

“Ms. Baker’s primary argument for demanding production of documents in native format is that such production might reveal that SCU has not produced all of the documents it should have. SCU’s document production is not particularly voluminous, and Ms. Baker has had nearly a month to review it. Absent a specific, articulable basis for believing SCU has not complied with its discovery obligations, Ms. Baker does not have a compelling reason for demanding that SCU re-produce its entire responsive document production in native format simply because she might find something missing.”

As a result, Judge Demarchi denied the plaintiff’s request without prejudice, stating “If Ms. Baker identifies particular documents or specific categories of documents for which she requires metadata or production in native format, she should make a request for re-production of those documents to SCU, together with an explanation of why re-production is necessary, as SCU has invited her to do already. If the parties cannot agree on whether or to what extent re-production may be necessary or justified, they may bring their dispute before the Court pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases.”

So, what do you think?  Should the plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 26(f) have let the defendant off the hook for failing to comply with Rule 34(b)(2)?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Metadata from Photos Leads to Dismissal of Case Against New York City: eDiscovery Case Law

In Lawrence v. City of New York, et al., No. 15cv8947 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2018), New York Senior District Judge William H. Pauley, III granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for sanctions, ruling to dismiss the case against the defendants, but denying the motion for sanctions against the plaintiff’s counsel and denying the motion for reimbursement of attorney’s fees, stating “an award of attorney’s fees ‘would be a hollow victory … as it would likely be uncollectible.’”

BTW, in addition to exhibiting at ILTACON in National Harbor, MD next week in booth 936, CloudNine will also host a happy hour on Tuesday, August 21 from 4:30 to 6:30pm ET at the National Harbor’s Public House (click here to register).  Come and get to know CloudNine, your provider for LAW PreDiscovery®, Concordance® and the CloudNine™ SaaS platform!  We want to see you!

Case Background

In this case involving claims against the NYPD after an alleged warrantless search of the plaintiff’s home in August 2014, the plaintiff provided photographs that she claimed depicted the condition of her apartment several days after the incident in September 2016.  During a December 2016 deposition, the plaintiff testified that her son or a friend took the photographs two days after the incident, but in a subsequent deposition in April 2017, she indicated that she had taken most of the pictures, that her son had taken a few, and that none of them were taken by the previously described friend.  As a result of the conflicting testimony, the defendants requested the smartphones which the plaintiff claimed were used to take the photos. While the plaintiff’s counsel (Jason Leventhal) objected to that request, he did agree to produce the photographs’ native files, which included metadata.

When the defendants checked the photographs’ metadata, they learned that 67 of the 70 photographs had been taken in September 2016, which was two years after the incident and immediately before the plaintiff provided them to her counsel.  The defendants sent a Rule 11 safe-harbor letter to plaintiff’s counsel, shortly after which he moved to withdraw as counsel, disavowing any prior statements regarding the photographs and his ethics counsel indicated that other events compelled him to withdraw.  While his motion was pending, the plaintiff terminated his representation.  Subsequently, the plaintiff attributed her production of the photos as an accident because she had an eye infection.  After the defendant requested sanctions under FRCP rules 11, 26, and 37, the plaintiff attributed her production of the photos because of mental illness.

Judge’s Ruling

Noting that “the date the photographs were created became apparent only after Leventhal filed suit and Lawrence testified”, Judge Pauley stated that “Based on the evidence supporting Lawrence’s claims, including the 911 call produced in discovery, this Court cannot conclude that Leventhal had a duty to withdraw Lawrence’s claims.”  He ruled similarly with regard to the plaintiff’s conduct regarding Rule 11.

With regard to Rule 26 sanctions, Judge Pauley noted that “Leventhal repeatedly attempted to gain access to the devices containing the photos” and that “a reasonable lawyer would not have doubted that they showed what Lawrence claimed”, so he ruled that “Leventhal’s production of the photos may have been careless, but was not objectively unreasonable.”  As for the plaintiff, Judge Pauley stated: “On the other hand, it is clear that Lawrence, or someone acting on her behalf, created these photographs to bolster her claims, and then she falsely testified about them. Accordingly, sanctions under Rule 26 are appropriate.”

As for Rule 37 sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel, Judge Pauley, in denying the motion, stated: “Leventhal was unaware of Lawrence’s actions and took corrective action after learning that the photographs were taken two years later. Defendants have not shown that Leventhal handled his discovery obligations in an unethical or willfully non-compliant manner.”

However, noting that “Lawrence’s attempts to explain the photographs and her deposition testimony continue a pattern of evasion and untruths” and that her “deceptive conduct and shifting excuses have completely undermined her credibility”, Judge Pauley stated: “Lawrence’s conduct ‘requires that the policy favoring adjudication on the merits yield to the need to preserve the integrity of the courts.’…Accordingly, this case is dismissed.”  However, with regard to the defendants’ request for attorneys fees, Judge Pauley observed that “Lawrence is a widow, rents an apartment, and as of November 2015 was unemployed” and denied the request “as it would likely be uncollectible.”

So, what do you think?  Was dismissal too harsh a sanction here?  Should the plaintiff’s counsel have been held responsible?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Happy Anniversary to my beautiful wife Paige!  I love you honey!

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Grants Defendant’s Motion to Compel Various Records from Plaintiff in “Slip and Fall” Case: eDiscovery Case Law

In Hinostroza v. Denny’s Inc., No.: 2:17–cv–02561–RFB–NJK (D. Nev. June 29, 2018), Nevada Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe granted the defendant’s motion to compel discovery various sources of ESI related to the plaintiff’s claim of injuries resulting from a “slip and fall” accident at one of the defendant’s restaurants.

Case Background

In March 2018, the defendant requested various releases from Plaintiff to obtain documents regarding her employment, a prior car accident in 2015, and records from medical providers and the plaintiff provided some of the requested releases in the same month.  In April 2018, the parties met and conferred three times regarding the outstanding releases, as well as the plaintiff’s responses to the defendant’s amended second set of requests for production of documents. When the parties were unable to resolve their discovery disputes, the defendant filed the instant motion to compel the outstanding releases and responses to its requests.

Judge’s Ruling

Noting that the “burden is on the party resisting discovery to show why a discovery request should be denied by specifying in detail, as opposed to general and boilerplate objections, why ‘each request is irrelevant’”, Judge Koppe ruled on each of the following sources of ESI requested by the defendant:

  • Copies of any and all documents related to the 2015 car accident the plaintiff identified in your response to Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 18, as well as information regarding two slip and fall accidents in 2012 where the plaintiff was treated by an orthopedist and a neurologist: Judge Koppe said that “Medical records of injuries prior to an alleged accident are relevant to the issue of whether the injuries existed at the time of the accident and whether the accident caused or aggravated the injuries” and also noted that “police reports and insurance records are relevant because they likely contain statements, photographs, or other information ‘to confirm or refute [a plaintiff’s] allegation [he or she] was not injured’ in an accident”. Because “Courts within the Ninth Circuit have found that medical records and reports dating between three years to ten years prior to an alleged accident are discoverable”, Judge Koppe granted the defendant’s request for this information.
  • Copies of any text messages, emails, or other written communications between either the plaintiff or her counsel and several witnesses and a copy of all text messages or emails the plaintiff sent in the 48 hours after the Subject Accident: Noting that “Phone records are discoverable if the request is narrowly tailored in date and time and relates to a key issue in the case”, Judge Koppe granted in part this request.
  • Copies of any [of] the data of any type of FitBit, or other activity tracker device from five (5) years prior to the Subject Accident through the present: Noting that the plaintiff had waived objections that the request was overbroad and unduly burdensome because she did not raise these objections in her initial response to Defendant’s amended second set of requests for production, Judge Koppe ordered the plaintiff to “supplement her response to Defendant’s request for production number 30 to fully describe the search she conducted for responsive documents, by July 20, 2018.”
  • Copies or allow for inspection, any social media account the plaintiff had from five (5) years prior to the Subject Accident through the present: Noting that “information from social media is relevant to claims of emotional distress because social media activity, to an extent, is reflective of an individual’s contemporaneous emotions and mental state”, Judge Koppe found “that social media information and communications are relevant and, thus, discoverable under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)” and granted the defendant’s request for that information.
  • Authorization for the release of the plaintiff’s employment records: Despite the fact that the plaintiff claimed she was no longer pursuing a lost wage claim, Judge Koppe noted that “an amended complaint reflecting Plaintiff’s new claims has not been filed” and also observed that “it appears that Plaintiff’s claims of “limited occupational … activities … [and] loss of earning capacity” remain in her complaint”, so she granted that defendant’s request as well.

So, what do you think?  Did the judge fail to take into account privacy concerns of the plaintiff or should relevancy override privacy concerns in this case?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order in Broiler Chicken Case: eDiscovery Case Law

In the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, No. 16 C 8637 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2018), Illinois Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert denied defendant Agri Stats’ Motion for Protective Order, ruling the defendant “Has Not Made a Threshold Showing” and, the information requested by the End User Consumer Plaintiffs (“EUCPs”) was not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost (and, even if they had, the EUCPs showed good cause for requesting custodial searches of ESI, throughout the time frame set forth in the ESI Protocol) and that Agri Stats “Does Not Satisfy the Rule 26(b)(2)(C) Factors” to limit discovery.

Case Background

Prior to this class action lawsuit involving broiler chicken prices, defendant Agri Stats was the subject of a DOJ investigation and claimed it “searched for and produced to the DOJ documents and information like what the EUCPs are requesting”.  Agri Stats ran custodial searches for designated custodians for the period between September 17, 2008 through September 17, 2010, and it produced to the DOJ responsive documents it collected with those searches. But, the time frame for discovery in this case was much broader, extending from January 1, 2007 until September 2, 2016.

Agri Stats argued that it should not be required to run custodial searches of ESI created prior to October 3, 2012 (the date the DOJ investigation closed) for the agreed upon 12 custodians because it ran similar searches for most of those custodians during the DOJ investigation and “requiring it to re-run expensive searches with the EUCPs’ search terms for those same custodians for a broader time period than it already ran is burdensome, disproportionate to the needs of this case, and unreasonable when viewed through the filter of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2).”

The EUCPs disagreed and contended that Agri Stats should be required, like every other Defendant in this case, to perform the requested searches with the EUCPs’ proposed search terms for the time frame stated in the ESI Protocol, contending that both were broader than what Agri Stats produced for the DOJ investigation.

Judge’s Ruling

Considering the arguments, Judge Gilbert stated:

“The Court agrees with EUCPs. Although Agri Stats conducted custodial searches for a limited two-year period in connection with the DOJ’s investigation of possible agreements to exchange competitively sensitive price and cost information in the broiler, turkey, egg, swine, beef and dairy industries, that investigation focused on different conduct than is at the heart of EUCPs’ allegations in this case, which cover a broader time period than was involved in the DOJ’s investigation. The Court finds that a protective order is not warranted under these circumstances.”

While noting that “Agri Stats says that it already has produced in this case more than 296,000 documents, including approximately 155,000 documents from before October 2012” and that “Agri Stats represents that the estimated cost to run the custodial searches EUCPs propose and to review and produce the ESI is approximately $1.2 to $1.7 million”, Judge Gilbert observed that the “estimated cost, however, is not itemized nor broken down for the Court to understand how it was calculated”.  Judge Gilbert also noted that “EUCPs say they already have agreed, or are working towards agreement, that 2.5 million documents might be excluded from Agri Stats’s review. That leaves approximately 520,000 documents that remain to be reviewed. In addition, EUCPs say they have provided to Agri Stats revised search terms, but Agri Stats has not responded.”

As a result, Judge Gilbert determined that “Agri Stats falls woefully short of satisfying its obligation to show that the information EUCPs are seeking is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.”  In denying the defendant’s motion, he also ruled that “Even if Agri Stats Had Shown Undue Burden or Cost, EUCPs Have Shown Good Cause for the Production of the Requested ESI and Agri Stats Does Not Satisfy the Rule 26(b)(2)(C) Factors”.

So, what do you think?  Could the defendant have done a better job of showing undue burden and cost?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.