This case involves a dispute between Plaintiffs Lexi Leigh Zarfati, Michelle Williams, Jordana Morris, Maria Angelica Navas, and Grant West, and Defendant Artsana USA, Inc. regarding the entry of an Electronic Stored Information (ESI) protocol for discovery. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for the Court to adopt their proposed ESI protocol, which they argued was necessary for efficiently identifying and producing relevant electronic data in their class action lawsuit concerning a stroller design defect. The Defendant opposed this proposal, claiming it was overly technical, one-sided, and unsuitable for their business, raising concerns about the costs and practicality of implementing such a detailed protocol. Plaintiffs accused Defendants of insisting on “keeping its relevant custodians and data sources to itself.”

Plaintiffs argued that the discovery of ESI was crucial for their case, which involves complex issues and a nationwide class. They emphasized that the Defendant's resistance to discussing data sources and custodians was delaying the discovery process, potentially hindering the identification of crucial evidence. The Plaintiffs maintained that a comprehensive ESI protocol was necessary to ensure relevant data was properly identified and disclosed in a usable format. On the other hand, Defendant contended that the proposed protocol was disproportionate to the case’s needs, as it was more suited to larger class actions involving financial data and complex matters, which were not applicable to their business.

The Court sided with the Plaintiffs, agreeing that the case's complexity warranted the adoption of a detailed ESI protocol. Stating that contrary to Defendant's assertions, “this is not a run-of-the-mill lawsuit nor is Defendant a mom-and-pop business,” the Court emphasized that discovery, particularly involving ESI, must be a collaborative process and that the Defendant's refusal to engage in discussions about data preservation and search methods was unreasonable. The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that they should have complete discretion in determining the protocol and highlighted that any agreed-upon protocol must be reasonable and aligned with discovery obligations. The Plaintiffs’ motion for the ESI protocol was granted, with minor modifications, and their motion for a status conference was denied as moot.

The decision also outlined a comprehensive ESI protocol, providing clear definitions for key terms such as "Document," "Metadata," and "Electronically Stored Information." It emphasized the need for cooperation between the parties, outlining their obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the importance of preserving confidentiality during discovery. The Defendant is required to identify all custodial and non-custodial data sources that could contain relevant data, ensuring thorough preservation of evidence. Specific procedures are set for the handling, formatting, and production of ESI, including metadata preservation, OCR for scanned documents, and ensuring that data is produced in a usable format for review.

The protocol also includes provisions for dealing with foreign-language documents, compressed files, encryption, and metadata, ensuring that all data is properly handled and accessible. It mandates the use of technology-assisted review (TAR) and specifies how to address issues with encrypted or password-protected files. Both parties must cooperate to resolve issues before seeking Court intervention.

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 Caitlin Oyler, Counsel at CODISCOVR. Caitlin has over a decade of experience providing high-level advice to clients regarding all phases of the eDiscovery life cycle and managing high-profile document collections, reviews, and productions.