Skip to content

Menu

Jackson Lewis P.C.  logo
HomeAboutServicesContactSubscribe
Search
Close

Workplace Privacy, Data Management & Security Report

Employers Have An Obligation To Provide Meaningful Direction To Employees In Email Searches, But Employers Can’t Be Compelled To Recover Company Emails Stored On Personal Accounts Of Employees

By Douglas G.A. Johnston on February 25, 2016
Posted in e-Discovery, Information Management, Workplace Privacy

A recent case from the Northern District of California raises the importance of actively engaging with employees to coordinate the search for documents and electronically-stored information to comply with the employer’s discovery obligations. At the same time, the Court ruled that an employer cannot be compelled to produce business-related emails from the personal email accounts of its employees.

In Matthew Enterprise, Inc. v. Chrysler Group, LLC, the plaintiff, Stevens Creek – a car dealership – sued Chrysler for price discrimination in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act.  During discovery, Chrysler sought emails from Stevens Creek’s employees’ corporate Gmail accounts as well as emails from the employees’ personal email accounts which, at times, were used for business purposes.

As to the emails from employees’ corporate accounts, Chrysler argued that Stevens Creek used inadequate search parameters, failed to provide employees with a copy of the discovery requests, did not provide any meaningful direction to the employees on how to identify requested ESI and did not ask all relevant custodians to search for documents. In opposition, Stevens Creek argued it had undertaken reasonable efforts in good faith to comply with the requests for production.

With regard to emails from employees’ personal accounts, Stevens Creek argued that the emails were outside its “possession, custody, or control,” and, therefore, beyond the scope of discovery from Stevens Creek Chrysler responded that Stevens Creek has control over company information regardless of whether it is stored on personal email accounts and pointed to plaintiff’s employee handbooks instructing employees to keep “internal information” in the “sole possession” of Stevens Creek.

Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal, applying the recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, found Stevens Creek’s ESI search efforts to be lacking, citing as a specific examples, the suggestion by Stevens Creek to its employees to merely pull any email with the word “Chrysler” in it and Stevens Creek’s limitation of the relevant custodians to sales employees.  Accordingly, Judge Grewal ordered  Stevens Creek to ask both salespeople and all other employees who may have relevant documents to cooperate with the search and for Stevens Creek to coordinate the search for documents by telling those employees exactly what Chrysler had asked for and suggesting broad sets of search terms.

However, Judge Grewal found that Chrysler had failed to show that any contract existed between Stevens Creek and its employees requiring its employees to provide information stored in their personal accounts despite language in Stevens Creek’s handbook instructing employees to keep “internal information” in the “sole possession” of Stevens Creek. The court noted that the handbook language did not create a legal right and there was no “authority under which Stevens Creek could force employees to turn them over.”

Judge Grewal’s ruling has two important implications for employers. First, when responding to requests for electronically stored information, employers must take an active role in assisting employee-custodians in their search for responsive documents.  Second, Judge Grewal’s ruling indicates that employers should have strong agreements in place with employees who may be storing company information in personal email accounts, such as Gmail, for otherwise they may be prevented from recovering them when needed. Instead, these employees may be subject to direct, third party discovery of relevant information in their custody and control under Rule 45. This can complicate the employer’s defense and overall increase the cost of electronic discovery.

Tags: California, discovery, e-Discovery, electronic mail, email, employee personal email, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Northern District of California
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Related Posts
Recent HIPAA Settlement Offers Lessons on Data Disposal and the Meaning of PHI
August 24, 2022
Massachusetts Legislature Evaluates Its Own Comprehensive Consumer Privacy Law
February 15, 2022
The RIPTA Data Breach May Provide Valuable Lessons About Data Collection and Retention
January 12, 2022
Jackson Lewis JacksonLewis.com

Stay Connected

Subscribe to this blog via RSS Follow Us on Twitter Add us on Facebook View Our LinkedIn Profile

Topics

Archives

Editors

  • Jason C. Gavejian
  • Joseph J. Lazzarotti

Contributors

  • Christopher E. Hoyme
  • Damon W. Silver
  • Michael R. Bertoncini
  • Marlo Johnson Roebuck
  • Nathan W. Austin
  • Nicky Jatana
  • Jeffrey M. Schlossberg

Blog Authors Show/Hide

  • Joseph J. Lazzarotti
  • Jason C. Gavejian
  • Maya Atrakchi
  • Jackson Lewis P.C.
  • Mary T. Costigan
  • Damon W. Silver
  • Jeffrey M. Schlossberg
  • Michael R. Bertoncini
  • Robert Yang
  • Christopher E. Hoyme
  • Rachel E. Ehlers
  • Sean Paisan
  • Melissa Pascualini
  • Jody Kahn Mason
  • Frank J. Fanshawe
  • Gregory C. Brown Jr.
  • Eric J. Felsberg
  • Delonie A. Plummer
  • Richard I. Greenberg
  • Michelle L. Duncan
  • Jerel Pacis Agatep
  • Cecilie E. Read
  • Catherine R. Tucciarello
  • Todd R. Dobry
  • Susan M. Corcoran
  • Phillip A. Baggett
  • Dorothy Parson McDermott
  • Ryan J. Soscia
  • Ronald V. Sgambati
  • Nathan W. Austin
  • Joshua D. Allen
  • Jason Selvey
  • Michelle T. Hackim
  • Daniel J. Moses
  • Amanda A. Simpson
  • Yvonne Arvanitis Fossati
  • Teri Wilford Wood
  • Shannon Bettis Nakabayashi
  • Paul A. Friedman
  • Nikolas S. Dean
  • Marlo Johnson Roebuck
  • Melissa Ostrower
  • Michael H. Neifach
  • Joseph J. Lynett
  • Kevin B. Hambly
  • Jennifer Shoaf Richardson
  • Jackson Biesecker
  • Francis P. Alvarez
  • Cheyna Galloway
  • Amy L. Peck
  • Zachary A. Ahonen
  • John A. Snyder
  • Sierra Vierra
  • Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris
  • Richard F. Vitarelli
  • Kathryn J. Russo
  • Rachel A. Jacob
  • Philip M. Duclos
  • Laura A. Mitchell
  • Michael D. Ridenour
  • Leo P. Norton
  • Kevin D. Holden
  • Joshua M. Henderson
  • Jonathan J. Spitz
  • Jamie L. Levitt
  • Valerie K. Jackson
  • Howard M. Bloom
  • Greg Alvarez
  • Erik J. Winton
  • Elizabeth S. Walsh
  • David R. Golder
  • Craig W. Wiley
  • Clifford R. Atlas
  • Cindy Y. Huang
  • Christopher T. Patrick
  • Chai Williams
  • Chad P. Richter
  • Ashley Solowan
  • Angelika Avagian
  • Alec Nealon
  • Theron Velazquez
  • Terri Bowman
  • Robert Pfeifer
  • Regan Harrison
  • Paige
  • Nicky Jatana
  • Nicole A. Trotta
  • Mei Fung So
  • Lara Hamm
  • Kourtney Goebel
  • Kendall Melidosian
  • Gayla Kirkland
  • Kelly Heber
  • Katharine C. Weber
  • Jessica Poot
  • Jenifer M. Bologna
  • Jen Starken
  • Jonathan L. Crook
  • Haley Nystrom
  • Camille​​​​ Garcia‑Mendoza
  • Ann Albertson
  • Alitia Faccone

Recent Upates

  • HB1127 Explained: North Dakota’s New InfoSec Requirements for Financial Corporations
  • AI Moratorium Removed from Federal Budget Bill
  • When Minor Variations in Prompts Lead to Problematic Outputs
  • How a Texas Federal District Court Changed the HIPAA Reproductive Health Privacy Rule, But SCOTUS Decision May Say Not So Fast
  • The Potential For One Long Moratorium on AI Regulation

Jackson Lewis

Subscribe to this blog via RSS Follow Us on Twitter Add us on Facebook View Our LinkedIn Profile
Privacy PolicyDisclaimer

About Jackson Lewis

Focused on employment and labor law since 1958, Jackson Lewis P.C.’s 1,000+ attorneys located in major cities nationwide consistently identify and respond to new ways workplace law intersects business. We help employers develop proactive strategies, strong policies and business-oriented solutions to cultivate high-functioning workforces that are engaged and stable, and share our clients’ goals to emphasize belonging and respect for the contributions of every employee.

Read More...
Copyright © 2025, Jackson Lewis P.C. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo