Court Opinion

ID: 9960316
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 21:17:03.035333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:22.251995
License: Public Domain

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT                                                              CIVIL DIVISION
Windsor Unit                                                                   Case No. 23-CV-00435
12 The Green
Woodstock VT 05091
802-457-2121
www.vermontjudiciary.org

Sandra Holl
       Plaintiff

v.

Barry Polidor, Esq. and Barry J. Polidor, P.C.
       Defendants

                                  Decision on Defendants’ Motion to Compel

        At issue is the adequacy of an attorney’s response to a discovery request for production of
electronically-stored information.
        The underlying action involves a claim for legal malpractice. Plaintiff Sandra Holl hired
defendant Barry Polidor, Esq., to sell her home. Attorney Polidor sold the home and received the sale
proceeds into his business account. He then received an email from plaintiff’s email account
containing directions for the wire transfer of the sale proceeds. He complied with those wire
instructions, but plaintiff says that she never received any funds, and that the wire instructions were a
fraudulent email scam perpetrated by someone else. Plaintiff alleges that Attorney Polidor committed
legal malpractice by failing to call plaintiff to confirm the wire instructions before sending the money.
        Defendants served several requests for production upon plaintiff’s attorney. Defendants
specifically requested (1) “in native format,” all emails sent from or received by plaintiff’s email
account that contained at least one of twenty-five search terms, and (2) a “hit report” for each of the
search terms showing the search methodologies used. Plaintiff’s attorney responded by producing (1)
thirty-some pages of emails that were not “in native format,” but which rather had been forwarded by
the client to the attorney and thereafter printed, and (2) screenshots of the search terms typed into the
search function of a smartphone. It was not possible to tell from the screenshots whether the searches
had been run, nor what parameters were used, nor what results were obtained. Furthermore, the
forwarded and printed emails included neither complete headers nor any metadata.
       Defendants filed the present motion to compel, contending that the response was inadequate.
After receiving the motion, plaintiff’s attorney asked his client to take her phone to “someone” who
could download emails from her phone. Plaintiff took her phone to “someone,” who downloaded
emails from her phone and gave the files to plaintiff on removable media. Plaintiff then gave the
removable media to her attorney, who forwarded it to defendant as a supplemental production. No “hit
report” was included with the supplemental production, and the supplemental production failed to

Order                                                                               Page 1 of 3
23-CV-00435 Sandra Holl v. Barry Polidor, et al
include certain emails that are known to exist.* At the motion hearing, plaintiff’s attorney was not able
to explain who was the “someone” who had participated in the production of records, what their
qualifications were, what information they were given about the discovery request, nor what methods
they used to comply with the discovery request, nor why the production failed to include emails that
are known to exist.
        “A response to an electronic discovery request is not that different from a response to a
standard document request.” Grenig, Handbook of Federal Civil Discovery and Disclosure: E-
Discovery and Records 4th § 8:1. As with standard requests for production, there are certain steps that
an attorney must take in order to ensure that they have identified and produced all responsive
electronic records. Of primary importance is that an attorney must decide “who will perform the
collection, how and when it will be performed, and who will be responsible for tracking document
collection efforts.” Grenig, supra, at § 8:16. Best practices include the identification of a person with
the necessary training and experience to conduct the necessary searches, and close supervision of that
person by the attorney to ensure that the person has received “specific directions” as to the nature of
the discovery request and that the person has produced detailed results that enable others to validate
their search efforts. 1 Grenig & Gleisner, eDiscovery & Digital Evidence § 7:11; DR Distributors, LLC
v. 21 Century Smoking, LLC, 513 F.Supp.3d 839, 934 (N.D. Ill. 2021); Nat’l Day Laborer Org.
Network v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Agency, 877 F.Supp.2d 87, 108–09 (S.D.N.Y.
2012). At a minimum, the attorney should be able to explain their rationale for the methodologies
chosen, demonstrate that the methods were appropriate for the task, and show that the searches were
properly conducted. Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 251, 262 (D. Md. 2008);
Grenig, Handbook of Federal Civil Discovery and Disclosure: E-Discovery and Records 4th § 8:28.
        Here, plaintiff’s attorney did not fulfill the minimum requirements for responding to the
discovery request. Plaintiff’s attorney relied first on his client to respond to the discovery request, even
though he described her at the motion hearing as “basic” and “not internet competent” and “not tech
savvy.” His reliance on her “self collection” efforts did not result in the production of emails in their
“native format,” nor in a hit report that allowed others to validate her efforts. See DR Distributors, 513
F.Supp.3d at 934–37 (explaining, in detail, the risks of relying upon client “self-collection” of
electronically-stored information). Plaintiff’s attorney then relied on “someone” else to respond to the
discovery request without adequate supervision, which did not result in the production of a complete
set of responses, nor in a hit report that allowed others to validate the efforts made. Both methods
represent a failure on the part of plaintiff’s attorney to conduct “a reasonable inquiry into the
thoroughness of the client’s search and the completeness of the production before the production was
made.” Id. at 937; Vt. R. Civ. P. 26(g).
        For these reasons, defendant’s motion to compel is granted, and plaintiff is ordered to begin
anew with the response to the two requests for production identified in the motion. Plaintiff’s
objections to the discovery requests are overruled. The requests made are “relevant” and “proportional
to the needs of the case.” Vt. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Inherent to the articulation of the standard of care in
this legal-malpractice case is understanding exactly how the email scam unfolded. Plaintiff’s attempts
to limit the timeframe of discoverable evidence to a narrow window of time is not supported by the

         * The emails are known to exist because they are described in reports prepared by police officers investigating the

alleged criminal wire fraud.

Order                                                                                               Page 2 of 3
23-CV-00435 Sandra Holl v. Barry Polidor, et al
circumstances of the case, and there is nothing unduly burdensome about responding to the request for
production of emails that match certain search terms.
        At the motion hearing, plaintiff s attorney indicated a desire to have defendants search the
records themselves. Generally, the responding party bears the responsibility for complying with
discovery requests. Grenig, Handbook of Federal Civil Discovery and Disclosure: E-Discovery and
Records 4th § 13:10. If plaintiff’s attorney feels that the technological aspects of the response are
beyond their ability, they may tender to defendants any necessary devices or information for
defendants to conduct the needed searches. In that event, however, plaintiff remains responsible for the
reasonable costs of the procedure. l Grenig, eDiscovery & Digital Evidence § 9:1; Bailey v. Brookdale
Univ. Hosp. Med. Ctr., 2017 WL 2616957 at *3 (E.D.N.Y. June 16, 2017). Defendants may
additionally ﬁle a motion seeking compensation for the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining this
order, including attorney’s fees. Vt. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4); 8B Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure: Civil § 2288.

        Electronically signed on Wednesday, April 3, 2024 pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d).

                                                              kgﬁ—W
                                                            H. Dickson Corbett
                                                            Superior Court Judge

                                                           Vermont                Court
                                                                                o o
                                                                     FS‘illlépderior
                                                                       Wmdsﬁé 814:2?

Order                                                                                     Page 3 of 3
23-CV-00435 Sandra Holl v. Barry Polidor, et a1