Schulze, Jillyn K., United States Magistrate Judge
Answering plaintiffs’ motion to compel, the magistrate judge held that discovery in this negligence class action was not constrained by limits from a previous, related securities action and that the burden of producing ESI did not outweigh plaintiffs’ right to discovery.
This action arose from asserted violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). Plaintiffs claimed that defendants breached their ERISA duties by imprudently managing plaintiffs’ retirement account and by later failing to limit investment losses. The parties entered discovery negotiations on the appropriate time period for preservation and production, but were not able to come to an agreement. Plaintiffs sought production of defendants’ ESI for dates between the beginning of 2007 and late 2008. Defendants argued that production would be overly broad if not limited to the first half of 2008, and that the production sought by plaintiffs was unduly burdensome. Plaintiffs filed this motion seeking a resolution.
Defendants claimed that the range should follow one imposed during a prior securities litigation stemming from the same operative facts. The court rejected this argument, holding that unlike the securities action which focused on defendants’ alleged misleading statements, the ERISA action here focused on the defendants’ conduct as fiduciaries. The relevant date range should therefore be much broader. Accordingly, the court found that plaintiffs’ proposed time period was proper.
The court then addressed defendants’ contention that the burden imposed on defendants by plaintiffs’ discovery request outweighed any potential benefits to plaintiff. In support of their assertion, defendants presented evidence that it would cost nearly $400,000 dollars to comply with the requests. The court noted, however, that plaintiffs were actively working with defendants to find a less costly way through the use of search terms. The defendants were also given the option of utilizing a clawback agreement; requiring any privileged documents to be immediately returned to defendant. Leveraging search terms, a clawback agreement, and further cooperation between the parties was a better way of decreasing costs, the court held, than unfairly limiting the discovery time period.
v.
This Document Relates to: All Actions