Carney v. Barbaz

Nature of the Order

This is a joint electronic-discovery submission and order. It governs how the parties will preserve, search, review, and exchange electronically stored information in the case. It is not a decision on the truth of the allegations, the counterclaims, or the parties’ ultimate legal rights.

Underlying Dispute

Carney and CrewBloom allege that Barbaz used an alleged “Illegal Duplicate Device” to impersonate Carney, access her information, enter her drives and workspaces, and access her accounts. Barbaz denies the allegations and denies possessing, owning, or controlling the alleged device. He asserts counterclaims for defamation, defamation per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with economic relations, based in part on alleged statements about his criminality and other improper acts that were allegedly published to third parties, including his former employer.

Discovery Arrangements

The parties represented that they had met and conferred about electronic discovery. The submission states that their devices had been forensically imaged, including Barbaz’s iPhone, MacBook Air, two Android phones, and desktop, as well as Carney’s MacBook and iPhone. The parties agreed to preserve potentially relevant information and advised their clients not to destroy or alter information that might relate to the claims, defenses, or counterclaims.

The parties exchanged search terms to apply to forensic images of their personal electronic devices. Documents identified through those searches would be reviewed, coded, and produced under court-set deadlines. The parties agreed to produce documents in native, text, and image formats, together with load files containing standard metadata fields. They also agreed to exchange limited forensic images containing only system files.

The submission records that Barbaz was to begin a rolling production of responsive, nonprivileged documents by February 27, 2025, and that Carney and CrewBloom were to begin their rolling production by March 6, 2025. The parties were also directed to exchange forensic images of system files by March 6, 2025. Each side agreed to provide privilege logs for redacted or withheld material and, if privileged material was inadvertently produced, to stop reviewing it, delete it, and notify the other side. Each party agreed to bear its own client’s discovery costs.

Court Action and Classification

The court entered the parties’ joint submission and order. The parties stated that they would seek further court intervention if additional discovery disputes arose. Judge Valerie Figueredo signed the order on February 28, 2025. Because the order addresses discovery administration and does not resolve the underlying claims or counterclaims, this is a procedural order.