Case Law

Mere Speculation is Not Enough to Compel an Additional Search for ESI

Connecticut

Mirmina v. Genpact, 2017 WL 3189027 (D. Conn. July 27, 2017) The plaintiff sought an order requiring the defendant to conduct further searches for ESI. The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s previous search was insufficient because plaintiff’s counsel relied on an employee directly involved in the underlying claims to search through her own documents. The court noted that the plaintiff provided no case law to support the motion. The defendant responded stating that the discovery process was overseen by counsel, and therefore, the plaintiff’s claims are unfounded. To support its position, the defendant provided the steps used to supervise the discovery process, which included: (1) issued a timely and detailed litigation hold to potential custodians of ESI, directing the preservation of any records and documents that might pertain to plaintiff's claims; (2) gave instructions to the ESI custodians regarding searches and specific search parameters; (3) explained the importance of a thorough search to the ESI custodians; and (4) provided guidance when questions arose during the search. In addition, the defendant’s in-house counsel sent the results of the search to outside counsel for further review. Based on the information provided by the defendant, the court found the plaintiff’s claims to be nothing but speculation. In conclusion, the court held speculation was not enough to require an additional search and denied the plaintiff’s motion.

Keywords: ESI, Additional Discovery Request