Academy

The Special Master denied a motion to compel the production of data from personal mobile devices, finding that the employer did not have possession, custody, or control under Rule 34 based on the limitations in its BYOD policy and employee handbook. The decision highlights the critical importance of crafting clear BYOD and ESI protocols, especially regarding mobile data, and underscores the growing divide among courts over how control is determined in the modern workplace.

The Court denied a motion to compel after finding that plaintiff’s counsel failed to follow federal and local rules requiring meaningful meet and confer efforts in ESI discovery, instead attempting to impose a rigid, one-sided protocol. The ruling emphasizes the importance of cooperation, proportionality, and a tailored understanding of discovery obligations—warning that overreliance on inflexible templates can lead to sanctions and damage credibility with the court.

The discussion focuses on a court’s ruling regarding the treatment of hyperlinked documents as attachments under an ESI protocol, highlighting the technological limitations and obligations for producing contemporaneous versions and metadata, particularly with platforms like Google Drive and Google Vault. It emphasizes the importance of clear protocols, iterative discovery processes, and how advancements in technology may impact future production requirements in eDiscovery.