United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (ECF NO.
133)
KARI
A. DOOLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Preliminary
Statement
Before
the Court is the Defendant's Motion for Protective Order,
filed on December 28, 2018, wherein the Defendant moved
pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1) and Local Rule 37 for a protective
order excusing it from producing requested Sametime
messages.[1] (ECF No. 133.) The Plaintiff filed a
memorandum in opposition on January 18, 2019. (ECF No. 137.)
Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed supplemental responses on
February 20, 2019 (ECF No. 143) and on May 11, 2019 (ECF No.
163).
Standard
of Review
The
scope of discovery permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure is set forth in Rule 26(b)(1):
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged
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.
“Relevance
for discovery purposes is an extremely broad concept which
‘has been construed ... to encompass any matter that
bears on, or reasonably could lead to other matters that
could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the
case.'” Tri-Star Pictures, Inc. v. Unger,
171 F.R.D. 94, 101 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (quoting Oppenheimer
Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978));
see also Troupin v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.,
169 F.R.D. 546, 547 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (“[R]elevance is
defined broadly to include any materials which appear
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.”) (citing cases) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Notwithstanding
the breadth of the discovery rules, the district courts are
afforded discretion under Rule 26(c) to issue protective
orders limiting the scope of discovery. Dove v. Atlantic
Capital Corp., 963 F.2d 15, 19 (2d Cir. 1992)
(“[t]he grant and nature of protection is singularly
within the discretion of the district court....”).
“[A] district court may issue protective orders
‘for good cause … to protect a party or person
from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or
expense.'” S.E.C. v. Rajaratnam, 622 F.3d
159, 181 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1)).
“The
moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the necessity
for such an order.” Mitchell v. Fishbein, 227
F.R.D. 239, 254 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); see also In re Initial
Pub. Offering Sec. Litig., 220 F.R.D. 30, 33 (S.D.N.Y.
2003) (citing cases). “Ordinarily, good cause exists
when a party shows that disclosure will result in a clearly
defined, specific and serious injury.” In re
Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 454 F.Supp.2d 220,
222 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (internal quotations and citations
omitted).
Here,
the Defendant asserts that the process for retrieving,
reviewing and identifying responsive Sametime messages is (a)
unnecessary because the Defendant's employees do not or
are not supposed to use the Sametime messaging system for
work related communications and the messages will therefore
shed no light on this case, and (b) extremely burdensome in
terms of cost and resources and wholly disproportionate to
the dispute at issue.[2] As to the first assertion, it appears
clear from the discovery had to date that, in fact, employees
used Sametime messaging for business related purposes,
whether they were supposed to or not. As to the second, the
Court agrees that a wholesale review of the Sametime
messaging data is unduly burdensome and disproportionate to
the needs of the case and the amount in controversy. However,
some limited review and disclosure is appropriate.
It is
therefore Ordered that on or before June 15,
2019, the Plaintiff shall identify the names of 20 people who
she believes had the most involvement with her loan and loan
modification efforts. The Defendant shall search the
computers of these 20 employees for Sametime messages
pertaining to the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff's account
for the period June 1, 2016 through March 30, 2017. The
Defendant shall produce any responsive Sametime messages on
or before August 1, 2019.
The
Motion for Protective Order is otherwise
GRANTED.
SO
...