In Brown v. Tellermate Holdings Ltd., No. 11-cv-1122 (S.D. Ohio July 1, 2014), the district court found that the defendants’ attorneys “fell far short of their obligation to examine critically the information which [their clients] gave them about the existence and availability of documents requested by [the plaintiff].”  For example, in this age-discrimination case, the defendants’ attorneys repeatedly represented to the plaintiff and the court that none of the defendants or their representatives could access any of the plaintiff’s sales history or information.  This turned out to be incorrect.  The court also described several other inaccurate statements the defendants’ attorneys made to the court, and criticized the defendants’ designation of over 100 documents as “attorneys’ eyes only” without a proper basis.  The court emphasized that Rule 26(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require attorneys to perform “a reasonable inquiry” before certifying that the information contained in every disclosure, discovery response, or objection is correct and conforms to the Federal Rules.  The court explained that, as a result, “counsel cannot simply take a client’s representations…at face value.”  The court suggested that an attorney’s responsibilities may be particularly important where ESI is involved because “[a]s discoverable information becomes increasingly digital, e-discovery…plays a larger, more crucial role in litigation.”