Robinson v. De Niro

Background

Graham Chase Robinson worked for Canal Productions, Inc. from about 2008 until her resignation on April 6, 2019. Defendants alleged that she used Canal’s American Express card, petty cash, and frequent-flyer miles for personal purposes, including food purchases. Defendants asserted related claims in state court, which later became counterclaims in this action. Robinson separately claimed that defendants failed to pay overtime, violated the Equal Pay Act, retaliated against her, and discriminated against her because of her gender.

The parties negotiated a protocol for searching electronically stored information. Robinson identified two personal email accounts that she agreed to search. During document review, defendants discovered a third account: an old personal AOL address that appeared on Caviar receipts. Robinson said she could not access the AOL account because of two-factor authentication and an old device, and that the account contained little or no relevant information. She also said she had already provided copies of the Caviar receipts that had been submitted to Canal for reimbursement. Defendants did not dispute that they had those receipts but objected to identifying them in their own records.

Legal standard

The court explained that discovery generally covers relevant information that is proportional to the needs of the case. A party must make a reasonable inquiry for responsive documents and identify sources of potentially relevant electronic information. But a party need produce only documents within its possession, custody, or control. When relevant electronic information is not reasonably accessible, the parties should consider the costs and burdens of retrieving it, whether the information is available from a more accessible source, and whether retrieval would be proportional.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Robinson should have identified the AOL account when the parties negotiated their discovery protocol. It also found that her account was active during her employment and that she had used it in connection with her Caviar account. The court rejected the argument that difficulty logging into the account meant Robinson lacked possession, custody, or control of it.

The court nevertheless characterized the AOL account as inaccessible and concluded that it was not the primary source of the information defendants sought. The Caviar application and defendants’ own accounting records were more accessible sources, and Robinson had produced the relevant receipts. Requiring her to recover and search the AOL account for the same receipts would therefore be redundant and disproportionate to the needs of the case.

The court also determined that sanctions were not warranted. Although Robinson failed to identify the account at the outset, she had identified the primary sources of relevant information and produced the relevant documents from those sources.

Disposition

Judge Katharine H. Parker denied defendants’ Rule 37 motion to compel production from the AOL account. The court also declined to impose sanctions in this discovery dispute. The opinion did not resolve the underlying claims or counterclaims.