December 2020
Bloomberg Law
By Lionel M. Lavenue; R. Benjamin B Cassady; Eric S Magleby
Parties who have been through discovery know that litigants often hotly dispute the bounds of what is discoverable. Many parties are extremely sensitive about discovery veering into areas that may lead to the collection of personal information from their employees, opening up the possibility that any of that information, such as personal emails, may be produced.
Still, personal emails are certainly discoverable under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, personal emails would be considered “electronically stored information” under FRCP 34(a)(1)(A) and discoverable so long as they meet the relevance and proportionality requirements of FRCP 26(b).
Although discovery demands targeting personal accounts or devices are easy to bat away when they are obviously irrelevant or made for an improper purpose, they can also provide powerful leverage to a demanding party who has good reason to believe relevant evidence exists in such locations.
The significance of this issue is only exacerbated by the recent proliferation of work-from-home orders caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, which has merged work and home environments, and blurred the lines between personal and business matters on an unprecedented scale.
The private nature of personal emails in and of itself increases the burden on a party seeking discovery to show that a discovery request is reasonable—that is, their need for relevant evidence outweighs privacy concerns and logistical hurdles. The FRCP's guidance on how to strike the balance between privacy, burden, and relevance concerning discovery of employees’ personal email accounts is limited.
A recent federal court decision in Texas in Ultravision Technologies, LLC v. Govision, LLC, provides insight into when personal emails or devices become discoverable.
Read the full article here.
Reproduced with permission from Copyright 2020 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) www.bna.com. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm's clients.
Articles
How Low Can You Go? Courts Lower Marking Defense Burden, Raising Patent Damages Risks
June 29, 2026
Prosecution First Blog
USPTO Tightens “Unintentional Delay” Petitions — 1-Year Time Period Now Triggers Heightened Scrutiny
June 23, 2026
Federal Circuit IP Blog
Federal Circuit Holds Defend Trade Secrets Act Claim Untimely Filed
June 22, 2026
At the PTAB Blog
June 18, 2026
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.