Leavitt, Lawrence R., United States Magistrate Judge
This is the first of four opinions in this case concerning discovery of ESI. This opinion involved the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for a protective order, holding that plaintiff was allowed to depose defendant’s expert about the “kinds and categories of ESI [that] were included in defendants’ hold letter.”
This action arose from allegations of widespread discrimination and sexual harassment by eleven female employees of the defendants. Although the opinion presumes familiarity with the facts, a thorough background of the case is provided in Cannata v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp., 2011 WL 5854658.
Defendants filed a motion for protective order after failing to reach an agreement concerning the scope of the litigation hold notice sent out by the defendant and plaintiffs’ refusal to reschedule the deposition. Plaintiffs served defendants with a Rule 30(b)(6) notice requesting the defendants supply a person most knowledgeable on four different topics, including the topic of defendants’ litigation hold protocol and ESI. The notice did not specify a location but rather stated “TBD.”
Defendants argued that the notice was invalid because it did not state the specific location, but the court rejected this argument because the parties later agreed to reschedule the deposition. Defendants also argued that the litigation hold topic was overbroad and asked that the scope of the litigation hold topic be limited to “the identity of persons who received litigation hold notices and the information regarding what such recipients were instructed to do to preserve evidence.”
The court held that the litigation-hold letters may be privileged, but “the basic details surrounding the litigation hold are not.” The court found that plaintiffs were entitled to know what kind of ESI was included in the litigation hold letter and plaintiffs’ “requests were reasonable and may ultimately benefit the defendants if questions ever arise concerning defendants efforts to preserve relevant ESI.”
v.
WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants
Counsel
Edward Chapin, Chapin Fitzgerald Sullivan LLP, San Diego, CA, Felicia Medina, Jill Sullivan, Stefanie Roemer, Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP, Washington, DC, Vincent J. Aiello, The Law Office of Vincent J. Aiello Chtd., Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiffs.Bruce C. Young, Deborah L. Westbrook, Patrick H. Hicks, Wendy M. Krincek, Jeanine Olivares Navarro, Kristina N. Escamilla, Littler Mendelson, PC, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants.