This case involves a legal dispute between Plaintiff Gagne Technical Services, Inc. ("Elcon") and Defendant Josh Presutti, a former employee who allegedly transferred proprietary information and trade secrets from Elcon to his new employer, Defendant RAM Industrial Services, LLC ("RAM"). Elcon has filed a motion to compel compliance with an ESI (Electronically Stored Information) Protocol, which both parties had agreed upon for the discovery process. The protocol details the search of various devices and accounts to uncover potential evidence. The dispute centers around the details of the search terms, vendor to be used for the e-discovery process and the cost of discovery.

The ESI Protocol, agreed to in May 2024, stipulates that the parties would select a neutral vendor to search devices, accounts, and networks potentially containing Elcon's information. Elcon provided a list of search terms, and the protocol outlined the specific devices and accounts to be searched, including laptops, email accounts, external hard drives, and network folders related to RAM. After initial disagreements over the cost of the vendor, the parties eventually agreed to use ArcherHall as the e-discovery vendor. However, the process has been delayed due to objections from the Defendants over the cost and the scope of the search.

Defendants raised objections concerning the potential violation of confidentiality agreements in RAM's contracts with third parties, which they argued would be triggered by the external vendor's involvement in the search. They proposed conducting the search internally instead of using ArcherHall, suggesting various ways to allow Elcon oversight of the process. However, Elcon rejected this proposal, emphasizing that the vendor was part of the agreed-upon protocol and that it would not be feasible to trust RAM's internal search methods. Elcon also argued that the protocol and the existing Protective Order would address confidentiality concerns.

The Court, after hearing both sides, ruled that the ESI Protocol should be followed as originally agreed. It rejected Defendants' request to conduct an internal search and reaffirmed that the outside vendor should carry out the search. The Court found that the Defendants had delayed the process and that their concerns about confidentiality could be managed through the protective measures already in place. Furthermore, Defendants were reminded that they had already agreed to the cost estimates for the e-discovery process and were responsible for paying for the vendor services initially, with the possibility of seeking to shift some costs later.

Ultimately, the Court granted Elcon's motion to compel compliance with the ESI Protocol, requiring Defendants to make their devices, accounts, and networks available for the agreed-upon search. The search terms proposed by Elcon would be applied, and the cost of the search would be borne by the Defendants. The Court emphasized that, despite any confidentiality issues raised, the existing legal protections would suffice, and the discovery process should proceed without further delay.

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.