Recent Hyperlinked Documents Decision

In Yotta Technologies Inc. v. Evolve Bank & Trust, 2026 WL 172502 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2026), the court addressed hyperlinked documents, or “modern attachments.”

I have called this the “Humpty Dumpty” issue. “The Humpty Dumpty issue – – the question of re-linking pointers and targets – –  is very important….”  More on “Modern Attachments,” “Pointers,” or Hyperlinked Documents – Humpty Dumpty and “Usability” (Nov. 13, 2023):

• ESI Protocol Dispute – “Modern Attachments” and the “Humpty Dumpty Issue” (Apr. 29, 2024);
• 8 Lessons Learned – Part I – The “Humpty Dumpty” Clause of ESI Protocol (May 6, 2024);
• Uber Technologies – Another Hyperlink Decision (Mar. 6, 2025).

In Yotta, Yotta moved to compel every document withheld by Evolve based on the bank examination privilege or as confidential supervisory information. Much of the court’s decision turns on those unique issues of qualified privilege. The court also addressed a number of other issues, including a belated motion to compel production of PII.

The court then turned to hyperlinked documents, writing:

Finally, Yotta moves to compel the documents that are hyperlinked in the produced documents listed in ECF No. 139-2. The Court agrees with Evolve that a hyperlink relationship (meaning the document, such as an email, contains a link to another document) does not by itself mean the linked document should be treated as an attachment and produced. See In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litig., 2023 WL 4361131, *1 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2023) (“[T]he ESI protocol should make clear that hyperlinked documents are not treated as conventional attachments for purposes of preserving a ‘family’ relationship in production.”);[1] Nichols v. Noom Inc., 2021 WL 948646, *4 (S.D.N.Y. March 11, 2021) (“[T]he Court does not agree that a hyperlinked document is an attachment.”).

However, sometimes it may be appropriate to produce a linked document, depending on the nature of the produced document. See In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litig., 2023 WL 4361131, *1 (“[T]he Court anticipates that for some documents, it will be important to collect (or attempt to collect) hyperlinked documents and associate them with the underlying ESI in which the links appear. In such circumstances, the parties should consider reasonable requests for production of hyperlinked documents on a case-by-case basis. Such requests should not be made as a matter of routine.”). Here, Yotta gestures at the documents listed in ECF No. 139-2 and proclaims them to be “important.” This is not a sufficient case-by-case showing. Therefore, Yotta’s motion to compel is DENIED.

Id. at *4.

UPDATE: Doug Austin, Select 250 Responsive Emails with Hyperlinked Attachments, Says Court (Jan. 13, 2026), discussing  United Ass’n Nat’l Pension Fund v. Carvana Co., No. CV-22-02126-PHX-MTL (D. Ariz. Jan. 12, 2026)(“Arizona Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle ordered Plaintiffs to ‘select 250 responsive emails with hyperlinked attachments’ for Defendants to run a search on using Forensic Email Collector (‘FEC’), with Defendants to ‘complete the FEC search and provide Plaintiffs with the most contemporaneous version of non-privileged hyperlinked attachments within 10 DAYS of receiving Plaintiffs’ selection.'”).

____

[1] See “Modern Attachments,” ESI Protocols, & Second Chances (Jun. 8, 2023), for a discussion of Meta Pixel.