Taming Modern Data Challenges: The Case Law of Linked Documents

Over our last three posts, we have discussed linked documents in terms of why the challenge exists, the dispute over what they should be called, the historical collection and preservation challenges associated with them, best practices for discovery of linked documents, and the Cimplifi approach to discovery of linked documents in Microsoft 365 for Relativity.

Case law is one of the strongest indicators of how courts expect discovery issues involving linked documents to be handled, and several notable rulings have addressed this topic. In the fourth and final post on taming the modern data challenges of linked documents, we will briefly discuss some of the most important case law rulings regarding linked documents and why they may be important to how your organization addresses discovery of linked documents.

Key Case Law Rulings Involving Linked Documents

Over the past several years, there have been at least two dozen case law rulings related to the handling of linked documents. Here are eight rulings related to five cases that are particularly notable.

Nichols, et al. v. Noom Inc., et al. (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2021)

In this case, the plaintiffs didn’t anticipate there would be linked documents and didn’t realize there were until they started receiving productions where the emails contained links instead of embedded attachments. This was well after the parties had already negotiated and agreed upon an ESI protocol, which didn’t address the potential issue of linked documents.

The plaintiffs pushed for hyperlinks to be treated as modern attachments and produced as part of a document family, and for the defendants to re-produce the emails accordingly. The defendants argued that linked documents were not attachments, noting they were separately collecting and producing relevant internal documents on Google Drive. However, they did agree to produce a reasonable number of linked files at the plaintiffs’ request. In this case, New York Magistrate Judge Katherine Parker observed that the ESI protocol did not specifically address linked documents as part of family groups, and she ruled that they were not attachments, and that they may or may not be necessary to the communication.

Why this ruling is important: It demonstrates the importance of discussing the handling of linked documents early with opposing counsel and including linked documents in ESI protocols or other agreements between the parties.

In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litig. (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2023)

In this case, the handling of linked documents was one of the sticking points to agreeing upon an ESI protocol. Here, California Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi stated that she was persuaded that the commercially available tools suggested by the plaintiffs were not sufficient for use by Meta in their environments or systems and would not work with their workflow. So, she ruled that linked documents should not be treated as conventional attachments. But she also stated that the parties should consider reasonable requests for them on a case-by-case basis, though such requests should not be made as a matter of routine.

Why this ruling is important: This was the first notable case ruling to be decided before there was an ESI protocol agreed upon regarding the handling of linked documents.

In re StubHub Refund Litig. (N.D. Cal. April 25, 2023)

This case had two notable rulings regarding linked documents. In the first ruling, the parties had already agreed to an ESI protocol, which said that linked files must be produced as separate attached documents. When StubHub encountered difficulties doing so, California Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixson called them to task for it, saying “Litigants should figure out what they are able to do before they enter into an agreement to do something. Litigants should live up to their agreements, especially when they are embodied in court orders, as the ESI Protocol is here.” Because StubHub not only had failed to produce the linked documents, but also failed to really provide an adequate explanation as to why they couldn’t, they were ordered to either produce the files or provide a 30(b)(6) witness to explain why they couldn’t.

Why this ruling is important: It shows the importance of understanding the capabilities of your or your clients’ systems before agreeing to any approach regarding the handling of linked documents.

In re StubHub Refund Litig. (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2024)

In the second ruling, Judge Hixson revisited the issue after StubHub finally clarified the difficulty producing these files and after giving 30(b)(6) deposition testimony. Judge Hixson noted that the ESI protocol stated that it may be modified for good cause and consequently found that StubHub had demonstrated good cause to remove the requirement in the ESI protocol that linked documents must be produced as attachments.

Why this ruling is important: It shows the importance of preserving the option to modify an ESI protocol for good cause, which enables your organization to adjust to unexpected issues.

In re Uber Techs., Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault Litig., (N.D. Cal. April 23, 2024)

This case also gave rise to multiple rulings regarding linked documents. Like the In Re Meta Pixel case before, California Magistrate Judge Lisa Cisneros was addressing an issue between the parties as part of an ESI protocol. Unlike that case, however, she conducted an in-depth analysis of the issues related to linked documents. She discussed the issues pertaining to Google vault and the lack of functionality to track versions of linked documents sent, which she referred to as the “contemporaneous versions”. But she also noted that the contemporaneous versions of hyperlinked documents can support an inference regarding “who knew what, when” and recognized the potential evidentiary importance that they could have.

So, she ruled that Uber should preserve the metadata relationship between emails and linked files to the extent possible and included “modern attachments” in the definition of attachments to be included in the ESI protocol. But she also recognized the technological difficulties of producing them and noted that Uber is not obligated to produce them if the technology doesn’t make it feasible.

Why this ruling is important: Of all the cases so far, this one is probably the most in depth discussion of the issues and considerations associated with hyperlinked files.

In re Uber Techs., Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault Litig., (N.D. Cal. March 3, 2025)

In this ruling, Judge Cisneros addressed several disputes between the parties related to the handling of linked files (including links to non-Google Drive documents, links within non–Google email documents and email threading), ordering the parties to meet and confer regarding the hyperlinked files disputes.

Why this ruling is important: It illustrates just how nuanced the issues can be related to linked documents.

In re Uber Techs., Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault Litig., (N.D. Cal. March 11, 2025)

Here, the parties submitted a joint stipulation reflecting their compromise regarding the production of “hyperlinked material”, which called for weekly requests of “no more than ten (10) hyperlinked documents that have otherwise not been produced” (which Judge Cisneros entered as an Order).

Why this ruling is important: This stipulation illustrates the importance of compromise if the parties can’t agree on an approach to handle large volumes of linked documents.

Hubbard v. Crow, (W.D. Tex. June 5, 2025)

Here, Texas Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Chestney ruled on the status of Plaintiffs’ linked file possession, custody, and control by ordering them to contact a third-party podcaster to see whether it is possible to obtain the original version of the hyperlinked file containing the unedited podcast.

Why this ruling is important: It addresses the issue of possession, custody, and control of linked files and the obligation of parties to pursue discovery from non-parties to collect them.

Conclusion

As you can see from the rulings above, the disputes and issues related to linked documents are considerably varied. We expect this trend will continue, given all the nuanced issues related to linked documents, how potential relevance and proportionality considerations will differ from case to case, and how technology will evolve to potentially reduce the burden of producing linked documents. Check back here as Cimplifi will track and report key developments in this ever-changing eDiscovery challenge.

In our next post in the series, we will discuss another challenge that isn’t new but has also become much more common in recent years: discovery of structured data!

For more regarding Cimplifi forensics & collections capabilities, click here.