Ball v. Manalto, Inc.
2:16-cv-01523
W.D. Wash.May 5, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Craig Ball alleges Manalto failed to pay promised commissions after his employment (terminated July 2016) and sued for wage violations and related claims; case removed to federal court.
- On Nov. 1, 2016 Ball served RFPs seeking emails mentioning or sent/received by Ball and documents about Manalto’s relationships with several customers (Telstra, Globe, ReadySpace, Telenor, CenturyLink, Dnet/SiteDart).
- Parties negotiated ESI search terms; Defendants proposed narrow terms and declined to produce broader results absent agreement, citing substantial attorney-review burden and cost.
- Defendants produced some ESI after initial motions, but Ball identified apparent gaps (few emails produced from his custodial account, and emails appearing under other custodians that Ball expected in his account).
- Ball moved to compel fuller ESI production and sworn explanations of preservation/search procedures; Defendants relied mainly on counsel declaration asserting production was complete.
- Court found Ball’s evidence persuasive that production may be incomplete, defendants offered no IT declarations, and ruled Ball’s requested searches were relevant and proportional; court granted motion and set specific production and declaration deadlines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Defendants produced all email to/from Ball and must run broader searches | Ball: production omitted many emails (Office365/laptop) and defendants should be ordered to produce all nonprivileged Ball emails and explain preservation/searches | Defs: they produced entirety of Ball’s email accounts as of last day; broader searches are overly burdensome and disproportionate | Court: Defs must provide detailed sworn declarations from persons who preserved/searched ESI and produce all nonprivileged Ball emails from Office365 and laptop within 21 days |
| Whether emails from other custodians mentioning Ball must be produced | Ball: such emails likely contain relevant facts and are proportional; cost can be reduced by proposed methods | Defs: production from other custodians is burdensome, not proportional, and issues are narrow (performance, commissions, termination) | Court: ordered searches of specified custodians for messages with "craig" and other terms; production compelled as relevant and proportional |
| Whether documents re: customer relationships (Telstra, Globe, ReadySpace, Telenor, CenturyLink, SiteDart/Dnet) must be produced | Ball: these records are directly relevant to commissions/territory and proportional | Defs: requests are overbroad; relevance limited to addressable market; Ball inflated case value | Court: compelled production using court-specified search terms (including wildcard and proximity searches) and allowed protective order to address confidentiality |
| Whether sanctions/fee award should be available for motion to compel | Ball: requests recovery of reasonable expenses including attorney fees | Defs: disputed necessity of relief | Court: Ball may file a motion for reasonable expenses and fees within 7 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2005) (district courts have broad discretion in determining relevancy for discovery)
- Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing scope of discovery and court discretion)
- Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1975) (party resisting discovery bears burden to show why it should be denied)