Legal Updates

This is Part Two of a series on the perils of redacting non-responsive but sensitive material during pre-trial discovery. In Part One, we focused on cases against non-responsive redactions. In Part Two, we shift to cases allowing non-responsive redactions and provide our conclusory thoughts.

In an era of massive spreadsheets, expansive power points, and wide ranging email discussions, there are innumerable documents that may contain tremendous amounts of non-relevant and sensitive information which the opposing side would not be entitled to at all, except for that information’s proximity to minimal amounts of relevant information. Not all courts have come out in the same place on redacting non-responsive information, however, and there appears to be a dearth of controlling law or general consensus. In this article we will survey a cross section of relevant cases on both sides of the issue.

In January, I wrote a blog about the landmark case of United States v. Microsoft Corp. pending before the United States Supreme Court. Following publication of that blog, the Court heard oral arguments on February 27, 2018. On April 17, 2018, the Court dismissed the case as moot after Congress passed an amendment to the SCA and the Government obtained a new warrant pursuant to the amended Act. I have mixed feelings on this one. 

In a perfect litigation world, parties would operate in good faith, draft reasonable discovery requests, answer requests completely and thoroughly, cooperate throughout the meet and confer process, and discovery would flow seamlessly. The real litigation world, however, does not usually follow this pattern. In December of 2015, the amended FRCP Rule 26(b)(1) sought to address the burdens associated with preservation and production by emphasizing proportionality and defining the scope of discovery. This article addresses the concept of "proportionality" and analyzes a recent case from the United States Disctrict Court, District of Columbia, which specifically addresses each proportionality factor.

Two of the most compelling discovery sanction cases of the past year are Klipsch Group., Inc. v. ePRO E-Commerce Ltd. and Ronnie Van Zant, Inc. v. Pyle, both decided in the Second Circuit. In the first, the court awarded $2.68 million in discovery sanctions in a case valued at a mere $20,000. In the second, the court issued an adverse inference when a defendant failed to preserve text messages held by a non-party. The implications of both decisions appear far-reaching and critically important for those involved in the discovery process.     

So, you’re deep in the weeds of your latest e-discovery project for an important client and things are going smoothly. An email now arrives from the review team flagged as urgent and with the tag line, “Take a look at this document, it’s got some pretty sensitive info - that isn't relevant - and I’m pretty sure the client won’t be happy sending this out.” Just redact it, right? At least one court disagrees.