New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Discovery — Fact That Documents Are Publicly Available Is No Defense to Production of Documents Possessed, But There Is No Duty to Obtain Unpossessed, Publicly Available Documents for Production (What About Work Product?)

Download PDF

Todd v. Tempur-Sealy Int’l, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161037 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2014):

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs' initial Complaint, filed on October 25, 2013, and operative Second Amended Complaint, filed on August 29, 2014, allege misrepresentations and omissions by Defendants Tempur-Sealy International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC that their mattresses and pillows were "formaldehyde free," "free of harmful [volatile organic compounds ("VOCs")]," had only a "slight odor" that would last a "few days," and were "hypoallergenic." ECF Nos. 1, 63, 79. The Court entered a Stipulated Protective Order in this case on September 16, 2014. ECF No. 68. The parties represent that [*3]  they have attempted to resolve all discovery disputes without the Court's intervention, but that they are unable to resolve these remaining issues. ECF No. 79 at 2.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Website and Social Media Pages

Plaintiffs seek historical versions of Defendants' website and social media pages dating from January 1, 2003, that refer to or mention whether Defendants' mattresses and pillows contain VOCs like formaldehyde, emit odors, off-gas, contain allergens, are hypoallergenic, or are otherwise safe. ECF No. 79 at 2. Plaintiffs argue that these materials relate to their core allegations in the case and that Defendants should have to produce the information so that there is no question as to its genuineness. Id. at 2-3. Defendants state that they are producing "copies of prior web pages in their possession obtained from internet archive sites, and information or communications from consumers received through its [sic] web and social media pages in Tempur-Pedic's possession that are not visible or obtainable by the public." Id. at 3. But Defendants maintain that they "do not maintain a historical archive of web or social media pages," and that Plaintiffs should bear the burden of locating relevant information [*4]  to the extent that it is currently displayed on an active webpage or is available in archives or other locations maintained by non-parties unrelated to Defendants.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1), Defendants must produce documents in their "possession, custody, or control." "Control is defined as the legal right to obtain documents on demand." HTC Corp. v. Tech. Properties Ltd., No. 08-cv-00882-JF (HRL), 2011 WL 97787, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2011) (quoting In re Citric Acid Litig., 191 F.3d 1090, 1107 (9th Cir. 1999)).

As defendants apparently acknowledge, they must produce responsive documents currently in their possession and information that is not available to the public. ECF No. 79 at 3, but they must also produce any information in their possession, custody or control even it is also publicly available. Regal Elecs, Inc. v. Pulse Eng'g, Inc., No. 03-cv-1296-JW (RS), 2005 WL 3078983, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2005) ("Rule 34, however, does not excuse Regal from providing documents in its possession or control, solely because the information is also publicly available."); Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 572 Pension Fund v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 01-cv-20418-JW, 2005 WL 1459555, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2005) ("It is not usually a ground for objection that the information is equally available to the interrogator or is a matter of public record." (quoting St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Commercial Fin. Corp., 198 F.R.D. 508, 513 (N.D. Iowa 2000))).

Defendants are correct, however, that they are not required to survey internet archives [*5]  to produce documents not currently in their possession that are equally available to Plaintiffs. Estate of Young v. Holmes, 134 F.R.D. 291, 294 (D. Nev. 1991) (Plaintiff did not have "control" of articles he had sold to the New York Post where he could not command release of the documents and the Defendant could secure copies of the requested documents as readily as the Plaintiff).

Defendants are therefore ordered to produce all responsive documents in their possession, custody, or exclusive control, regardless of whether they are publicly available.

How exactly does this tie to work product protection if counsel surveys the Internet or the Wayback Machine to prosecute or defend the case and finds things he or she has no interest in proffering?

 

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Criminal Spoliation Can Be A Due Process Violation — Defendant Must Show That (1) The Evidence Had Exculpatory Value Before It Was Destroyed, (2) Defendant Is Unable to Obtain Comparable Evidence by Reasonable Means, and (3) Bad Faith Failure to Preserve

1) Rule 11 Sanctions: “No First Amendment Exception to a Rule 11 Violation” — “[T]he First Amendment Covers Novel, Nonfrivolous Arguments, But Many Frivolous Arguments Are Also Novel” (Good Quotes) — Frivolous To Continue To Make Rejected Novel Arguments; (2) FRAP 38 Sanctions: District Court In Best Position to Set Sanctions, Attorney’s Fees and Costs

3 Prerequisites for Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions in Second Circuit: (1) Bad Faith, (2) Conduct That Is Entirely Without Color [Thus, An Ill-Motivated Colorable Position Appears to Be Protected in the Second Circuit], and (3) Improper Purpose— “To Gain A Strategic Advantage” Is An Improper Purpose — Due Process Satisfied by Opponent’s Motion and Multiple Court Conferences, After Which Target Was Allowed to Submit Additional Letters

Inherent Power Sanctions — Untimeliness as Laches — Laches Properly Applied to Deny Sanctions Motion — Note Waived Defenses to Laches

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Substantial Justification or Harmless Error (Ninth Circuit Factors) — Erie: When State Supreme Court Has Not Squarely Addressed an Issue, Circuit Must Predict How It Would Rule, Using Intermediate Appellate Decisions, Decisions from Other Jurisdictions, Statutes, Treatises And Restatements for Guidance

(1) Appellate Review of Inherent Power Sanctions (7th Circuit): Factual Findings Reviewed for Clear Error, Choice of Sanction for Abuse of Discretion — 4-Element Test for Reversal; (2) Sanctions and Class Actions: Monetary Sanctions Properly Imposed on Defendants for Improper Communications with Class Members (Represented Parties) — “[I]f The Class And The Class Opponent Are Involved In An Ongoing Business Relationship, Communications From The Class Opponent To The Class May Be Coercive” (Good Quote); (3) Monetary Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger: If Same Fact-Gathering Would Have Been Conducted Absent The Misconduct, No But-For Causation — But Only “Rough Justice” Required, “Not Accountant-Like Precision” (Good Quote) — Once Misconduct Is Clear, Time Spent Ferreting It Out Compensable under Goodyear; (4) Goodyear Did Not Overrule Long-Standing Rule That Courts May Impose Modest Civil Monetary Sanctions to Curb Litigation Abuse; (5) Appellate Jurisdiction Lacking Where Sanctioned Attorney Fails to File Notice of Appeal and Lawyer’s Intent to Appeal Not Apparent from Client’s Notice; (5) Rule 11 Improper Purpose — Party May Have Many Purposes for Pursuing Claim — As Long As Claim Is Supported by Good Faith Belief in the Merits, “A Parallel Reason Does Not Violate Rule 11” — To Deny A Motion for Sanctions, The District Court Need Not Address Every Argument: “Arguments Clearly Without Merit Can, And For The Sake Of Judicial Economy Should, Be Passed Over In Silence” (Good Quote); Non-Monetary Sanction on Counsel: Complete Twice The Required Amount Of Professional Responsibility Hours For Her Next Continuing Legal Education Cycle Imposed By The State Bar

(1) Spoliation: Sanctions Are Warranted Only If the Movant Establishes That A Reasonable Trier of Fact Could Find That The Destroyed Evidence Would Support A Claim Or Defense — § 1927 Sanctions: “Courts Often Refuse to Award Sanctions When Both Parties Contributed to the Waste of Judicial Resources” (Good Quote)

No Sanctions Imposed on Counsel Who Submitted A.I.-Generated Phony Cases Without Checking Them in Good Faith on The Mistaken Assumption They Had Been Provided by Highly Respected Co-Counsel Rather Than His Criminally-Convicted, Disbarred Client — No Sanctions on Client Who Had No Access to LEXIS or Westlaw to Check the Phony Cases and Submitted Them in Good Faith: “It Would Have Been Downright Irrational For Him To Provide Fake Cases For [His Lawyer] To Include In The Motion Knowing They Were Fake —

(1) Electronic Spoliation — Rule 37(e)(2) Dismissal Sanction — Temporal Proximity of Spoliation to Production Due Date = Circumstantial Evidence of Intent; (2) While Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Abuse Of Discretion, Findings Of Fact Related To Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Clear Error; (3) Dismissal under Rule 37(e)(2) Plus Attorney’s Fees under Inherent Power Appropriately Combined [But see 2015 Advisory Committee Note: “New Rule 37(e) … authorizes and specifies measures a court may employ if information that should have been preserved is lost, and specifies the findings necessary to justify these measures. forecloses reliance on inherent authority or state law to determine when certain measures should be used.”]; (4) Compensatory Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger Appropriately Include Fees and Costs Resulting from Attempts to Settle Spoliation Motion

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice