Shenwick v. Twitter, Inc.
Shenwick v. Twitter, Inc.
2018 WL 5735176 (N.D. Cal. 2018)
September 17, 2018
Kim, Sallie, United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The parties argued over the production of documents constituting “embedded hyperlinks” to electronic mail messages. The Court ordered that Defendants must produce documents referenced in a hyperlink for 200 documents that Plaintiffs choose. This case highlights the importance of ESI, such as hyperlinks, and the need to produce them in a timely and cost-effective manner.
Additional Decisions
DORIS SHENWICK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
TWITTER, INC., et al., Defendants
v.
TWITTER, INC., et al., Defendants
Case No. 16-cv-05314-JST (SK)
United States District Court, N.D. California
Signed September 17, 2018
Counsel
Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Rosemary M. Rivas, Quentin Alexandre Roberts, Levi & Korsinsky LLP, San Francisco, CA, Daniel S. Drosman, Danielle Suzanne Myers, David Conrad Walton, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Scott H. Saham, Susannah Ruth Conn, Nathan R. Lindell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA, Jeffrey S. Abraham, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, Joseph A. Fonti, Bleichmar Fonti Tountas & Auld LLP, J. Alexander Hood, II, Jeremy A. Lieberman, Marc Gorrie, Pomerantz, LLP, Peretz Bronstein, Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, New York, NY, Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Matthew Sinclair Weiler, Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Oakland, CA, Gregg S. Levin, Motley Rice LLC, Mount Pleasant, SC, Christopher Francis Moriarty, James Michael Hughes, Max Nikolaus Gruetzmacher, Meghan Shea Blaszak Oliver, Meredith B. Weatherby, Motley Rice LLC, Mt. Pleasant, SC, Michael J. Pendell, William H. Narwold, Motley Rice LLC, Hartford, CT, Charles J. Piven, Brower Piven, a Professional Corporation, Stevenson, MD, Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP, Beverly Hills, CA, Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs.James Glenn Kreissman, Alexis Susan Coll-Very, Simona Gurevich Strauss, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Dean Michael McGee, Janet A. Gochman, Jonathan K. Youngwood, Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants.
Kim, Sallie, United States Magistrate Judge
DISCOVERY LETTER ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REFERENCED IN EMBEDDED HYPERLINKS Regarding Docket No. 190
*1 The parties submitted a letter brief regarding the production by Defendants of documents constituting “embedded hyperlinks” to electronic mail messages. Plaintiffs seek an order compelling production of these documents, and Defendants argue that production of these documents is overly burdensome. Plaintiffs identified 725 specific hyperlinks to documents at issue.
Defendant Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) uses a Google Suite (“GSuite”) environment in which individuals can work simultaneously on the same documents lodged in Twitter’s system. In different electronic messages, individuals referred to documents stored in the GSuite environment, via a hyperlink. After receipt of the electronic mail message, a recipient accesses the referenced document via the hyperlink, and sender and recipient can then modify the referenced document, which is stored centrally so that more than one person can access it.
Defendants produced 79,579 electronic mail messages and included specific attachments to those messages, resulting in the production of an additional 55,387 records. Defendants claim that the hyperlinks are not like attachments to electronic mail messages and argue that producing an attachment – a static document – is relatively simple, but producing a document referenced in a hyperlink – an evolving document – requires a multi-step process by a human being. The steps required are locating the document containing the link, clicking through the link to the source file, determining the file owner’s identity if a passcode is required and obtaining that passcode, manually identifying the date-stamped version of a linked GSuite document that corresponds to the referring electronic mail message, capturing the data in a manner that minimally affects the metadata, exporting the data to the vendor for processing, and producing the data in a manner that matches it to the referring electronic mail message. (Dkt. 190, at page 7.) Defendants claim that searching for and producing the documents in the 725 hyperlinks identified by Plaintiffs will take at least six weeks and cost more than $100,000. (Id.) Defendants also challenge the usefulness of this exercise, given that Defendants separately searched documents in the GSuite environment and produced relevant ones; the search will identify documents that Defendants have already produced.
Plaintiffs do not dispute the burden but argue instead that Plaintiffs should not suffer because Defendants have chosen a storage method that is difficult to search. Plaintiffs argue that the documents referenced in the hyperlinks are no different from attachments to electronic messages and that Defendants should produce them.
The Court is mindful of the burdens to Defendants but also notes that Plaintiffs have a right to determine if an electronic message refers to a document, then Plaintiffs should be able to access that document. Given the competing needs, the Court ORDERS that Defendants must produce documents referenced in a hyperlink for 200 documents that Plaintiffs choose. In other words, Plaintiffs may identify up to 200 hyperlinks for which they seek the referenced documents, and Defendants must produce them. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer on a schedule for this production. If they cannot agree upon a schedule, they may submit that dispute to the Court but must make a meaningful effort to resolve any scheduling problems before asking for the Court’s assistance.
*2 IT IS SO ORDERED.