A group of plaintiffs—including individual citizens and advocacy organizations—filed a civil rights lawsuit against multiple officials and agencies in Rochester, New York, alleging systemic police misconduct, particularly the use of excessive force and racial discrimination. The lawsuit proposes two classes of affected individuals: one harmed generally by racially motivated policing practices, and another subjected to force during the George Floyd and Daniel Prude protests. As part of the discovery process, the parties attempted to agree on a protocol for handling electronically stored information (ESI), but failed, prompting the court to intervene.
Magistrate Judge Mark W. Pedersen issued an ESI Order after reviewing both parties’ proposed protocols. The City Defendants objected to this order, raising concerns about metadata production, cost, technical capacity, and compatibility with the plaintiffs’ e-discovery tools. They argued that the ESI Order improperly adopted the plaintiffs’ proposal without sufficient legal justification or procedural fairness, and sought to have it vacated in full.
The court evaluated the City Defendants’ objections against the applicable legal standards, which grant broad discretion to magistrate judges in discovery matters. Judge Pedersen’s ruling was found not to be “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” The plaintiffs were deemed to have shown good cause for the production of metadata, particularly because it was essential to verifying the integrity of police reports and video evidence related to excessive force incidents.
Arguments from the City regarding the burdens of compliance, lack of specific search parameters, high costs, and technical incapacity were all rejected. The court noted that the ESI Order explicitly allows parties to negotiate alternative production formats if the prescribed protocol proves unduly burdensome. Additionally, concerns about forced compatibility with the plaintiffs’ software (Relativity) and native format requirements were found to be either overstated or misrepresented, as the ESI Order included flexible provisions addressing these issues.
Ultimately, the court concluded that none of the City Defendants’ objections held merit. Judge Pedersen had properly considered the legal standards and the parties’ positions. The ESI Order provided appropriate mechanisms to address burdens or technical limitations and adhered to local rules on metadata and native format production. As a result, the court affirmed the ESI Order in full and overruled the City Defendants’ objections.
If your organization is seeking support with eDiscovery, our team has solutions to address all phases of the discovery process. At CODISCOVR, we deliver client-focused, defensible, and scalable solutions using advanced technology and intelligent review practices to meet eDiscovery, document review, and information governance needs in a manner that reduces the risks and costs associated with electronically stored information (ESI). Reach out to Shari Coltoff at CODISCOVR for more information. Shari has over 20 years of experience in the ever-evolving eDiscovery life cycle, from document collection to managing large long-term reviews through productions.
