Lawyers Who Ignore E-Discovery’s Pitfalls Will Invite Sanctions

A recent federal court ruling in Pennsylvania demonstrates that parties in litigation are expected to produce all relevant electronic communications, including Microsoft Teams messages. Failure to do so invites sanctions on both the client and the representing lawyer.

In RIG Consulting, Inc. v. Rogers, the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ordered the defendant to produce Teams account messages and business emails, and it imposed sanctions on both the defendant and its counsel for failing to produce the relevant electronic communications.

Before the court was the plaintiff’s renewed motion to compel discovery and for sanctions against the defendant for failing to fully respond to a request seeking all documents that referred to or reflected relevant communications.

Following multiple court orders, the defendant continually objected to producing Teams account messages, arguing, inter alia, that the requests were “overly broad,” that he didn’t have “access to any communication records,” and that he “did not possess any information responsive to their request.”

The court noted that Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “permits a party to serve a request to produce documents in the ‘possession, custody or control,’ and not just in the possession, of the party upon whom the request is served.” The court found that the defendant’s failure to even attempt to locate responsive emails and Teams messages was “frankly, inexcusable” given its prior orders.

The court awarded cost and fees associated with the preparation and filing of both the motion to compel and the renewed motion to compel that served as the basis for the court’s order—and it reserved the right to order additional sanctions for noncompliance. It further held that it was appropriate to sanction both the defendant and its counsel and ordered counsel to pay 50% of the imposed sanctions.

The case underscores that legal teams must ensure they’re meeting their discovery obligations to prevent potential sanctions against their firm or clients. These obligations include:

Developing clear legal hold policies. Legal teams should implement policies with defined scopes, clear triggering events, and assigned roles and responsibilities. These must include procedures, such as suspending routine data retention policies to preserve relevant information.

Distributing precise legal hold notices. Legal hold notices should comprehensively identify all potential sources of relevant data, including key individuals and departments. Notices must be specific and unambiguous to ensure proper understanding and compliance.

Preserving all communication platforms. This case highlights that all forms of electronic communications are subject to discovery—including emails, Teams messages, Slack, cloud accounts, and mobile device data. Organizations should take steps to ensure this data is preserved and protected from alteration, loss, or destruction.

Monitoring legal hold compliance. Courts may sanction legal teams for failing to meet discovery obligations. A process must be implemented to track and verify compliance with legal holds to mitigate risk and avoid penalties.

Engaging an experienced e-discovery vendor. The preservation, collection, and production of electronic communications require technical expertise. Partnering with a qualified e-discovery vendor helps ensure defensible practices and reduces the risk of sanctions.

Going forward, RIG Consulting is a cautionary tale and a clear directive for all parties involved in litigation—the duty to preserve and produce relevant electronic communications is non-negotiable. As digital collaboration tools become more deeply embedded in daily business operations, courts will continue to expect comprehensive, good-faith efforts to identify and produce this data.

Legal teams must stay proactive by implementing robust discovery protocols, leveraging technology, and engaging knowledgeable partners. Those who fail to adapt risk not only jeopardizing their case but also exposing themselves and their clients to significant sanctions.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Scott Scheinberg, senior counsel at Hilgers Graben, handles high-stakes litigation and multimillion-dollar disputes.

Rose J. Hunter Jones is a partner at Hilgers Graben and a global e-discovery thought leader.

Christopher Hunchuck, counsel at Hilgers Graben, specializes in e-discovery, complex civil litigation, and internal investigations.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines