Source: https://percipient.co/do-i-have-to-produce-deleted-or-corrupted-esi/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 12:48:38+00:00

Document:
Do I Have to Produce Deleted or Corrupted ESI?
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(b), and similar state rules such as Illinois Supreme Court Rule 201, absent good cause, litigants are not required to produce electronically stored information (ESI) that is “not reasonably accessible.” But what information is “not reasonably accessible” and what is good cause justifying its production?
A party may avoid discovery of otherwise relevant ESI if it establishes the information is “not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B). “[W]hether production of documents is unduly burdensome or expensive turns primarily on whether it is kept in an accessible or inaccessible format . . . [which] turns largely on the media on which it is stored.” Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309, 318 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
The proportionality analysis called for [in e-discovery rules and law] may indicate that the following categories of ESI should not be discoverable; (A) “deleted,” “slack,” “fragmented,” or “unallocated” data on hard drives; (B) random access memory (RAM) or other ephemeral data; (C) on-line access data; (D) data in metadata fields that are frequently updated automatically; (E) backup data that is substantially duplicative of data that is more accessible elsewhere; (F) legacy data; (G) information whose retrieval cannot be accomplished without substantial additional programming or without transforming it into another form before search and retrieval can be achieved; and (H) other forms of ESI whose preservation or production requires extraordinary affirmative measures.
The following are examples of court decisions finding certain ESI not reasonably accessible and exempt from e-discovery obligations.
Best Buy Stores v. Developers Diversified Realty, 247 F.R.D. 567 (D. Minn. 2007) (Database not reasonably accessible because of high cost to restore).
Good v. American Water Works Co., Inc., Case No. 2:14-1374 (D. W. Va. April 17, 2015) (Declining to require a party to “reload” and recreate data lost due to software malfunction).
A party seeking to avoid production of ESI that is not reasonably accessible should identify it and provide “enough detail to enable the requesting party to evaluate the burdens and costs of providing the discovery and the likelihood of finding responsive information on the identified sources.” Mikron Industries, Inc. v. Hurd Windows & Doors, Inc., No. C07-532RSL (D. Wash. April 21, 2008); Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC, 655 F. Supp. 2d. 146, 149 (D. Mass. 2009); Grant v. Homier Distributing Co., No. 3:07-CV-116 JVB (N.D. Ind. August 24, 2007). The responding party must provide this information as part of the meet and confer process and also to permit the court to consider shifting the costs of production to the requesting party.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B), even if information is “not reasonably accessible,” it must be produced upon a showing of good cause. The Advisory Committee Notes state that “good cause” hinges on whether the burdens and costs of production “can be justified in the circumstances of the case.” However, Courts may condition discovery upon payment by the requesting party of part or all of the reasonable costs of obtaining information from sources that are not reasonably accessible.
The decision whether to require a responding party to search for and produce information that is not reasonably accessible depends not only on the burdens and costs of doing so, but also on whether those burdens and costs can be justified in the circumstances of the case. Appropriate considerations may include: (1) the specificity of the discovery request; (2) the quantity of information available from other and more easily accessed sources; (3) the failure to produce relevant information that seems likely to have existed but is no longer available on more easily accessed sources; (4) the likelihood of finding relevant, responsive information that cannot be obtained from other, more easily accessed sources; (5) predictions as to the importance and usefulness of the further information; (6) the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation; and (7) the parties’ resources.
For instance, in Tener v. Cremer, 931 N.Y.S.2d 552 (App. Div. 2011), the court concluded that a defamation plaintiff demonstrated “good cause” necessitating a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether the case warranted restoration and retrieval of deleted information because the requested information might be the only way to establish the identity of the alleged defamer. Similarly, in W.E. Aubuchon Co., Inc. v. BeneFirst, LLC, 245 F.R.D. 38 (D. Mass. 2007), the court found good cause to order production of hard to retrieve medical claim files because the information was integral to proving culpability and damages.
What is an ESI or Data Custodian?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.