A recent decision from the Northern District of California, UAB “Planner5D” v. Meta Platforms, Inc. addresses a growing challenge in ediscovery: whether hyperlinked files embedded in emails and other documents are the same as traditional attachments for purposes of discovery. The ruling provides important guidance for litigators managing electronically stored information (ESI) and highlights the burdens involved in producing hyperlinked documents.
The Background
In this case, the plaintiffs requested that Meta produce hyperlinked documents referenced in emails and other materials that had already been produced during discovery. The plaintiffs argued that these hyperlinked documents should be treated like attachments, which parties are generally required to produce along with their parent emails.
Meta opposed the request, asserting that hyperlinked files are fundamentally different from attachments. According to Meta, producing hyperlinked documents would require a much greater effort and review process compared to standard email attachments. Meta also noted that it had already reviewed the hyperlinked files for relevance and privilege, and determined that production was unnecessary.
The plaintiffs then asked the court to compel production of the hyperlinked files or conduct an in camera review to determine their relevance and responsiveness.
The Court’s Decision
United States Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim ruled in Meta’s favor, stating that hyperlinked documents are not the same as attachments to emails. The court recognized the significant burden involved in searching for and reviewing hyperlinked files, which distinguishes them from traditional attachments in discovery.
Judge Kim also noted that Meta had already reviewed the hyperlinked documents and assessed them for relevance and privilege. The court found no reason to question Meta’s assessment, and thus denied the request for in camera review. In doing so, the court emphasized that the discovery process relies on the good faith of parties to properly evaluate and produce relevant documents.
Key Takeaways for Litigators
- Hyperlinked Documents Are Not Attachments: Judge Kim found that hyperlinked documents are not attachments, but courts across the country are split as to the scope of a party’s obligation to produce files from a link in an email. . Generally, courts have encouraged parties to meet and confer prior to production about the challenges with hyperlinked files and the scope of what can and will be produced with existing technology. Here, Meta had already produced the underlying documents and reviewed the proposed hyperlinked documents for relevance and privilege, meaning that the issue was moot with regard to the production burden.
- Burden of Production: The court underscored the significant effort required to locate and produce hyperlinked files, particularly when compared to email attachments. Litigators should be prepared to demonstrate a clear need if they seek production of hyperlinked files.
- Relevance and Privilege Assessments: Litigators must carefully review hyperlinked documents for relevance and privilege. Courts will typically defer to the producing party’s good faith assessment unless strong evidence suggests otherwise.
- In Camera Review Requests: Courts are split on engaging in in camera review of documents. Here, Judge Kim declined to do so, stating that the discovery process is built on “trust”. A party seeking in camera review, however, will need to provide a clear factual basis for questioning the producing party’s handling of the documents.
- Proactive ESI Protocols: As hyperlinked files become more prevalent in litigation, it is essential to proactively address them in ESI protocols. Litigators should consider including provisions for the treatment of hyperlinked files during discovery, especially in jurisdictions like the Northern District of California, which frequently handles complex ESI issues.
Practical Implications for eDiscovery
This decision underscores the evolving nature of ediscovery, particularly as it relates to hyperlinked files. While technology has advanced, the challenges of identifying, reviewing, and producing hyperlinked files remain significant. Litigators should take a proactive approach by updating their ESI protocols to account for these files and by staying informed about developments in case law.
The ruling also reinforces the importance of trust and transparency in the discovery process. Courts rely on the good faith efforts of parties to review documents for relevance and privilege, and only in exceptional circumstances will they intervene to conduct their own review.
She is a co-author of Electronic Discovery and Records and Information Management, and host of Case of the Week at eDiscovery Assistant. As Principal at ESI Attorneys, Kelly manages the boutique eDiscovery and information law firm that acts as operational business partners with its clients to advise law firms, corporations, and municipalities on all areas of electronic information including eDiscovery, privacy, cybersecurity, and information governance.
Kelly is also the CEO of eDiscovery Assistant — a SaaS-based practical resource for litigators handling eDiscovery — that curates discovery decisions, rules, and additional content. She is developing an online academy to provide on-demand education for lawyers and legal support professionals to stay abreast of changes in the law and technology that affect litigation and clients’ obligations to respond.
You can reach Kelly at [email protected], join her Facebook community group at Let’s Talk eDiscovery, or connect with her on Twitter @kellytwigger.