Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mirmina v. Genpact LLC

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

July 27, 2017

SCOTT MIRMINA
v.
GENPACT LLC

          RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL [DOC. #63]

          HON. SARAH A. L. MERRIAM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Scott Mirmina (“plaintiff”) has filed a Motion to Compel seeking an order requiring Defendant Genpact LLC (“defendant”) to conduct an additional search for electronically stored information (“ESI”). [Doc. #63]. Defendant has filed a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to plaintiff's motion. [Doc. #67]. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's motion is DENIED.

         I. Legal Standard

         Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the scope and limitations of permissible discovery:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “The party resisting discovery bears the burden of showing why discovery should be denied.” Cole v. Towers Perrin Forster & Crosby, 256 F.R.D. 79, 80 (D. Conn. 2009).

         II. Discussion

         On May 4, 2017, plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel additional responses to certain discovery requests. See Doc. #41. On June 13, 2017, this Court issued a Ruling denying plaintiff's motion, except to the extent the motion requested “materials described in the Initial Discovery Protocols that have not yet been disclosed.” Doc. #58 at 11. The Court further required defendant to comply in full with the Initial Discovery Protocols immediately, to the extent it had not already done so. See id.

         On July 14, 2017, plaintiff filed the instant motion. See Doc. #63. Plaintiff states that he “is concerned” that defendant has “withheld communications” that would be responsive to the Initial Discovery Protocols. Doc. #63-1 at 2. Plaintiff argues, in essence, that defendant's search for ESI was insufficient because counsel relied upon an employee directly involved in the underlying claims of the suit to search her own emails for responsive documents. See Id. Plaintiff cites no case law in his supporting memorandum. See Id. Defendant opposes plaintiff's motion, asserting that plaintiff's concerns are unfounded because the search for responsive records was coordinated and overseen by counsel. See generally Doc. #67. Defendant has provided an affidavit of defendant's in-house counsel detailing the steps that counsel took to ensure that a proper search for ESI was conducted.

A party's discovery obligations do not end with the implementation of a “litigation hold” - to the contrary, that's only the beginning. Counsel must oversee compliance with the litigation hold, monitoring the party's efforts to retain and produce the relevant documents. Proper communication between a party and her lawyer will ensure (1) that all relevant information (or at least all sources of relevant information) is discovered, (2) that relevant information is retained on a continuing basis; and (3) that relevant non-privileged material is produced to the opposing party.

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 229 F.R.D. 422, 432 (S.D.N.Y.2004). “Responsibility for adherence to the duty to preserve lies not only with the parties but also, to a significant extent, with their counsel.” Electrified Discounters, Inc. v. MI Techs., Inc., No. 3:13CV1332(RNC), 2015 WL 2383618, at *2 (D. Conn. May 19, 2015) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Indeed, for the current “good faith” discovery system to function in the electronic age, attorneys and clients must work together to ensure that both understand how and where electronic documents, records and emails are maintained and to determine how best to locate, review, and produce responsive documents. Attorneys must take responsibility for ensuring that their clients conduct a comprehensive and appropriate document search.

Orbit One Commc'ns, Inc. v. Numerex Corp., 271 F.R.D. 429, 437- 38 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(g) (requiring that counsel make a “reasonable inquiry” prior to certifying that a discovery response is “complete and correct as of the time it is made”).

         Defendant has described the steps that counsel took to coordinate and supervise the search for ESI in this matter. See Doc. #68 at 1-2. In-house counsel: (1) issued a timely and detailed litigation hold to potential custodians of ESI, directing the preservation of any records and documents that might pertain to plaintiff's claims; (2) gave instructions to the ESI custodians regarding searches and specific search parameters; (3) explained the importance of a thorough search to the ESI custodians; and (4) provided guidance when questions arose during the search. See Id. In-house counsel affirms that he forwarded the results of the searches to outside counsel, who in turn conducted a review for processing and production. See Id. Counsel for defendant has represented that a comprehensive search was conducted for all documents subject to production under the Initial Discovery Protocols, and all responsive documents have been disclosed. See ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.