In UAB “Planner5D” v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 19-cv-03132-WHO (SK) (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2024), California Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim denied the plaintiff’s request to compel production of hyperlinked documents, finding that “hyperlinked documents are not the same as attachments to emails” and also refused to weigh in on the relevance of the documents, stating: “Courts rarely get involved in assessing specific documents for relevance”.

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

In this case, Judge Kim set the stage for the dispute, by stating: “The parties dispute whether Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. (‘Meta’) should produce documents that are identified as ‘hyperlinks’ in documents that Meta already produced in response to Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents. Plaintiff argues that the hyperlinks to other documents in responsive documents are akin to attachments to emails that a party must produce. Meta responds that the hyperlinked documents are different from attachments to emails because searching for hyperlinked documents and reviewing them requires time and effort that is not required for producing an attachment to an email. Plaintiff argues that, by the title of the documents alone, it is obvious that the hyperlinked documents are relevant and responsive to its requests. Meta argues that it has reviewed the specific documents cited in Plaintiff’s request and determined that the documents are not relevant or privileged.”

Advertisement

In denying the plaintiff’s request to compel production of hyperlinked documents, Judge Kim stated: “Here, the Court agrees that hyperlinked documents are not the same as attachments to emails. Rather, the effort required to search for them is substantially greater than the effort required to produce attachments to emails. But here, Meta has reviewed the specific hyperlinked documents and assessed them for relevance and privilege, so the general burden is not an issue in this specific dispute. Plaintiffs argue that the documents are relevant and seek the Court’s assistance in requiring Meta to produce them. Courts rarely get involved in assessing specific documents for relevance but rather make general orders about categories of documents that a party must produce. Courts in general rely upon parties to assess relevance, and the system of discovery is based on trust that a party produces documents after a review and assessment for relevance and responsiveness. Here, it is possible that Plaintiff is correct and that Meta is required to produce the documents, but the only way the Court can assess Plaintiff’s theory is to review each of the documents in question. The Court cannot engage in that practice.”

So, what do you think? Should the Court have at least reviewed a sample of the documents to determine whether the plaintiff or the defendant was correct in assessing the relevance of the documents? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today. Hat tip to Kelly Twigger for the heads up on this case!

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Advertisement