Plaintiff Claims Defendant’s Search for ESI was Insufficient Because Counsel Relied Upon an Employee
In Mirmina v. Genpact, LLC, Civil No. 3:16CV00614 (AWT), (D. Conn. July 27, 2017), United States District Court D of Connecticut denied a motion by Plaintiff to compel Defendant to Conduct an additional search for Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”).
On May 4, 2017, plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel additional responses to certain discovery requests. On June 13, 2017, this Court issued a Ruling denying plaintiff’s motion, except to the extent the motion requested “materials described in the Initial Discovery Protocols that have not yet been disclosed.” The Court further required defendant to comply in full with the Initial Discovery Protocols immediately, to the extent it had not already done so.
On July 14, 2017, plaintiff filed the instant motion. Plaintiff states that he is concerned that Defendant has withheld communications that would be responsive to the Initial Discovery Protocols. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s search for ESI was insufficient because counsel relied upon an employee directly involved in the underlying claims of the suit to search her own emails for responsive documents. Plaintiff cites no case law in his supporting memorandum. Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion, saying that Plaintiff’s concerns are unfounded because the search for responsive records was coordinated and overseen by counsel. Defendant has even provided an affidavit of defendant’s in-house counsel detailing the steps that counsel took to ensure that a proper search for ESI was conducted. In-house counsel affirms that he forwarded the results of the searches to outside counsel, who then conducted a review for processing and production.
The Court says Plaintiff’s concern that responsive emails have not been produced appears to be based on nothing but speculation. This is insufficient to require Defendant to conduct an additional search. The Court accepts defense counsel’s sworn representation that all responsive materials have been disclosed. For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is denied.