Lawson v. Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc., 1:17-cv-01266

Background

FLSA collective action by current/former Operations Managers against Love’s alleging misclassification and unpaid overtime; ~400 opt-ins after conditional certification.
Discovery dispute centers on plaintiffs’ production of electronically stored information (ESI) and whether plaintiffs adequately searched for, preserved, and produced ESI and associated metadata.
Defendant moved to compel five remedies: require plaintiffs to hire (at their expense) an eDiscovery vendor to collect/search ESI; produce native files/metadata; provide hit reports for specified search terms; produce responsive documents to July 20, 2018 requests; and supply detailed descriptions of ESI sources and search methods.
Deposition of opt-in Richard Lynch revealed uncertainty about device provenance, possible deleted texts, and limited preservation efforts; plaintiffs’ counsel later provided general descriptions of devices searched, search terms used, and agreed to produce native files.
Court declined to order plaintiffs to hire an eDiscovery vendor or mandate forensic imaging (privacy/intrusiveness and proportionality concerns) but found plaintiffs must produce ESI in native format and allowed limited follow-up discovery to clarify search protocols.
Court also ordered the parties to meet and confer to agree on no more than ten tailored search terms (or notify the court if they cannot agree); defendant may propound up to five interrogatories to each discovery opt-in about search methodology.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs must hire an eDiscovery vendor at their expense	Unreasonable, disproportionate, intrusive, and unnecessary	Needed to ensure complete ESI collection and clarify gaps	Denied — no showing of systemic failure or proportional need; cost and privacy concerns weigh against it
Whether plaintiffs must produce ESI with metadata/native files	Plaintiffs agreed to produce native files when requested	Sought metadata to identify provenance and context	Granted in part — plaintiffs ordered to produce records in native format (to provide metadata)
Whether defendant may obtain further detail on plaintiffs’ ESI search protocols	Plaintiffs provided general descriptions; more intrusive demands unnecessary	Seeking clarity after deposition inconsistencies	Granted in part — defendant may serve up to five interrogatories on each discovery opt-in about search methodology
Whether to broaden/modify ESI search terms used by plaintiffs	Existing terms were narrow but plaintiffs willing to confer	Plaintiffs’ narrow terms (variants of "Love’s" and coworker names) may have missed responsive ESI	Granted in part — parties must confer and try to agree on up to ten tailored, relevant search terms; notify court if no agreement
Whether to permit forensic imaging/forensic review of devices/social media	Plaintiffs resist intrusive forensic exams and privacy invasion	Defendant sought more invasive collection tools to locate missing ESI	Denied — forensic imaging not ordered absent specific, compelling showing; privacy concerns and proportionality emphasized

Key Cases Cited

Marroquin-Manriquez v. I.N.S., 699 F.2d 129 (3d Cir. 1983) (district court discretion over discovery rulings)
Romero v. Allstate Ins. Co., 271 F.R.D. 96 (E.D. Pa. 2010) (definition and importance of metadata)
Wyeth v. Impax Labs., Inc., 248 F.R.D. 169 (D. Del. 2006) (metadata and ESI concepts)
Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 674 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2012) (native file format discussion in ESI context)
City of Colton v. Am. Promotional Events, Inc., 277 F.R.D. 578 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (native format production supplies metadata and provenance)
Fassett v. Sears Holdings Corp., 319 F.R.D. 143 (M.D. Pa. 2017) (proportionality considerations under amended Rule 26)
Woodard v. FedEx Freight E., Inc., 250 F.R.D. 178 (M.D. Pa. 2008) (allocation of ESI burdens in employment/FLSA litigation)
John B. v. Goetz, 531 F.3d 448 (6th Cir. 2008) (guarding against undue intrusiveness in compelled forensic inspections)