EEOC v. Yas Caribe, Inc., 2026 WL 2593286 (D.P.R. Sep. 2, 2026)

Why EEOC v. Yas Caribe, Inc. Is Important

This case is a stark reminder that attorneys cannot outsource e-discovery obligations to their clients. Relying on unsupervised self-collection for electronic data may run afoul of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g), potentially exposing parties to "discovery on discovery" and court-mandated supervised document searches.

Overview of YEOC v. Yas Caribe

In EEOC v. Yas Caribe, Inc., the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleged that the defendants subjected an employee to a hostile work environment and constructive discharge. During discovery, the EEOC challenged the defendants' document production, arguing their collection efforts were completely unsupervised by counsel and demonstrably incomplete.

During depositions, a key custodian admitted he had not reviewed his own electronic devices or those of the alleged harasser. In response to a motion to compel, the defense counsel argued that directly supervising the client’s search for responsive documents would make the attorney a "potential witness" and be "ethically inappropriate."

The EEOC requested "discovery on discovery" and a forensic inspection of the custodians' cell phones. Finding substantial doubts about the defendants' good-faith compliance, the court ultimately ordered them to perform an attorney-supervised search of the devices, squarely rejecting the defense's hands-off approach.

Ruling in EEOC v. Yas Caribe

Duty of Attorney Supervision Required

The court flatly rejected the defense counsel's argument that supervising a client's search would make him a potential witness or be inappropriate. The ruling emphasized that "neither supervising nor assisting a clients' document search converts an attorney into a witness in a case. In fact, such supervision may be required in appropriate circumstances." Because laypersons generally lack necessary technical and legal expertise, the court noted that attorneys’ expertise and supervision help ensure full compliance with e-discovery obligations.

Rule 26(g) Mandates Active Involvement

The court tied the failure to oversee collection to the "stop and think" requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 26(g). The judge stated that an "attorney's failure to adequately guide and supervise a client's search for responsive ESI may run afoul of Rule 26(g)." Attorneys must understand a client's data infrastructure, as "a discovery request for ESI... triggers an attorney's need to, at a minimum, understand how a client stores and uses ESI and how and where the client is searching for responsive documents."

Proportionality Limits Forensic Imaging of Cellphones

Despite finding the defendants’ efforts legally deficient, the court applied proportionality principles and declined to order a full forensic imaging of the personal devices, noting there was no concrete proof of willful spoliation, and such investigation “carries with it the risk of intrusion into private matters falling outside the scope of discovery.” Instead, the court took forensic inspection "off the table for now" and ordered a remedial, attorney-supervised search across all messaging platforms, mandating that the response explicitly identify "the persons assisting in said searches."

 Expert Commentary from Patricia Antezana, Reed Smith LLP:

The court ordered a forensic examination—typically considered an extraordinary remedy—related to a revised version of defendants’ employee manual that was produced after a deposition and after the discovery deadline.  The court took a forensic exam “off the table,” however, where defendants still needed to run attorney-supervised searches for responsive documents.  These decisions underscore that conduct throughout discovery is often critical when making determinations regarding whether forensic examinations or additional discovery may be warranted.

eDiscovery Case Law Tip

Counsel cannot abandon their professional duties by allowing interested custodians to "self-collect" without supervision. Legal teams must ask detailed questions about where data lives and actively guide the search to satisfy the "reasonable inquiry" standard. If you need a refresher on these critical e-discovery obligations and how to avoid court-mandated interventions, download Exterro’s Guide to the FRCP.

This alert is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice.

‍