April 5, 2020

April 05, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

April 03, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

April 02, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Illinois Court Rejects Overly Broad Request For Forensic Imaging Of Plaintiff’s Personal Computers

An Illinois appellate court has vacated a trial court’s order compelling the forensic imaging of several personal computers used by plaintiff, applying a balancing test that takes into account both the proportionality rule and the privacy concerns implicated in the request.  In Carlson v. Jerousek, 2016 IL App (2d) 151248, P4 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 2016), defendants in a personal-injury case moved to compel discovery of “electronically retrievable information,” ultimately asking the trial court for unrestricted access to inspect plaintiff’s personal computers, including a computer leased to plaintiff by his employer.

Carlson alleged that a brain injury affected his ability to complete tasks at work. The defendants argued that metadata from Carlson’s work computer would show them how long it took Carlson to complete tasks, and metadata from Carlson’s personal computer would indicate whether he stayed up at night playing computer games, demonstrating his ability to concentrate.  The defendants conceded that they did not know how to use the metadata but a “computer expert” would.  Although the trial court expressed skepticism about the broad nature of the requests, it entered an order requiring forensic imaging of the plaintiff’s computers.

The plaintiff sought reconsideration based on an affidavit from his employer’s in-house counsel, stating that the employer’s computer contained restricted information that could not be shared.  The trial court refused to consider the affidavit.

On appeal, the court noted that there is dearth of case law on forensic imaging and sought to fill in the gaps by examining the constitutional right to privacy, and applying the proportionality rule to electronic data.

In addressing privacy concerns, the appeals court found that the trial court should have considered the employer’s affidavit because it directly addressed the issue of private information.  The court noted that electronic discovery implicates privacy rights in a way that may sometimes seem “incomprehensible” to litigators, because of the sheer volume of information that can be stored on a computer. For example, even if a computer might contain some discoverable information, it might also contain large quantities of personal information or confidential business data.  On this basis, the appeals court found that the defendants were not entitled to such a “broad and intrusive” search.

As to proportionality, the appeals court explained that the proportionality requirement specifically targets the challenges posed by electronic discovery. Certain categories of data, such as data that is deleted, fragmented, ephemeral (such as random access memory), duplicative, or difficult to obtain without additional programming, is presumptively undiscoverable unless the requesting party can justify it.  To evaluate such a request, the court established a framework requiring the requesting party to show that:  (1) there is a compelling need for the information; (2) the information is not available from other sources; and (3) the requesting party is using the least intrusive means to obtain the information.

Noting that the defendants’ showing did not adequately address this framework, the court held the trial court erred by not applying the correct analysis. The defendants’ requests, the court said, were “vague and ambiguous,” and at a minimum, they should have involved an expert from the beginning to formulate search terms and narrow the scope.  The court also pointed out that the potential utility of the information was outweighed by the burden imposed by forensic imaging.  And finally, the court noted the lack of evidence that the computers were likely to contain the evidence that defendants contended could be relevant.  In other words, the searches might turn up nothing.

The takeaway from this case – which surveys a number of cases from other jurisdictions – is that blanket requests for forensic imaging probably will not be approved without very specific parameters that describe the relevance of the information, the precise method for obtaining it, and the reason that the information cannot be obtained elsewhere. Litigants who wish to undertake such discovery should be prepared to articulate a significant need for the data sought, and to show that imaging is truly warranted under the circumstances of the case.  Litigants opposing intrusive e-discovery should consider whether they can oppose aggressive e-discovery based on the various factors discussed in the majority opinion.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2020


About this Author


Brett M. Anders is a Principal in the Morristown, New Jersey, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He exclusively represents management in workplace law, including counseling and litigation.

Mr. Anders routinely advises clients regarding day-to-day employment issues, such as employee discipline and discharge, disability management issues, reductions-in-force and restrictive covenants. He also regularly conducts training programs for employers on a variety of employment-related topics, such as performance management, sexual harassment awareness and...

Charles Seeman, Jackson Lewis, ERISA, Employment Lawyer, Benefits Attorney

Charles F. Seemann, III, is a Principal in the New Orleans, Louisiana, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. His practice emphasizes ERISA and employment law, but encompasses a wide variety of litigation and counseling matters as well.

Mr. Seemann's primary practice focus includes the defense of ERISA plans and plan fiduciaries at both public and private companies, multi-employer plans and plan fiduciaries, and financial institutions providing services to ERISA plans. In addition to ERISA, Mr. Seemann has extensive experience in a wide range of employment matters, including stock-option disputes and executive compensation litigation; wage and hour advice and litigation; and private litigation and regulatory investigations in discrimination, hostile-environment and similar matters. Mr. Seemann is admitted to practice in both Louisiana and Texas, but has represented clients in complex and class action matters in numerous jurisdictions, including New York, California, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Massachusetts, Indiana, Florida, Oklahoma, Georgia, Tennessee, Virginia, Mississippi, and Washington D.C.