-
Motion to Compel Production of Text Messages Granted
In SAGE PRODUCTS v. CHEMRITE COPAC, INC., No. 19 CV 5308 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 12, 2021) pending before the Court was a motion by Defendant ChemRite Copac, Inc., to compel Plaintiff, Sage Products, LLC, to produce text messages. This was a breach-of-contract suit between Sage, a manufacturer and supplier of
-
Arbitrary Limits On The Number of Custodians And Use of ESI Costs In Different Case To Justify Burden And Splitting of Costs Rejected by Magistrate Judge
In COUNTESS CARY v. NORTHEAST ILLINOIS REGIONAL COMMUTER RAILROAD CORP, No. 19 C 3014 (N.D. Illinois February 22, 2021), before the Magistrate Judge was Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s production of ESI, which presented multiple issues. With respect to the issue of the number of custodians, Defendant proposed an arbitrary
-
Use Of Broad Search Term Compelled In Light Of Relevance To The Lawsuit And Absence Of Suggestions By The Parties On How To Further Tailor The Term
In Masimo v. Sotera Wireless, Case No. 19cv1100 (S.D. California Nov.16, 2020), before the Court was the parties’ Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute where Plaintiff sought to compel a production of emails from Defendant Sotera’s former CEO. The case arose from Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant infringed on nine
-
Good Cause Existed To Require Defendants To Search for Relevant Documents Outside Its ESI System Of Record
In Wiggins v. Bank of Am., N.A., Civil Action 2:19-cv-3223 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 4, 2020), the parties disputed, among others, the sufficiency of Defendants’ production from its Documentum ESI repository. The case arose from Plaintiff’s challenges to Defendants’ policy of assessing overdraft fees on its customers. As part of discovery,
-
Culling Through 10,000 Emails Not Overly Burdensome Rules Court
In Broussard v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ. & A & M Coll., No. 19-527-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La. Sep. 28, 2020), Plaintiff moved to compel and for sanctions under FRCP 37 on the grounds that Defendants failed to produce certain emails, among other discovery. The lawsuit arose from Plaintiff’s
-
Just Because A Search Will Produce More Documents Than Are Relevant Does Not Excuse Failing To Conduct A Search Rules Magistrate Judge
Before the Magistrate Judge in Hardman v. Unified Gov’t of Wyandotte Cnty., Case No. 19-2251-KHV-TJJ (D. Kan. Aug. 10, 2020) were a myriad of discovery disputes presented in Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Among others, Plaintiff moved for an order requiring Defendant to conduct searches using certain key words and for
-
Representative Examples of Search Hits Ordered In Discovery Dispute
In Taylor v. Shutterfly, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-00266-BLF (VKD) (N.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2020), the issue before the Court was the parties’ dispute concerning the application of search terms to Defendant Shutterfly’s ESI collection. The case arose from Plaintiff’s claim that Shutterfly placed misleading advertisements on Groupon’s website. In addition
-
Redactions Of Death Data In The Form of Clinical Trial Study Days Ruled Improper
In In re Onglyza (Saxagliptin) & Kombiglyze XR (Saxagliptin & Metformin) Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 5:18-MD-2809-KKC, (E.D. Ky. Aug. 19, 2020), at issue before the Magistrate Judge was Plaintiffs’ motion to compel arising from their claim that Defendants engaged in improper redactions of relevant information. Among the redaction types addressed
-
Magistrate Judge Had “No Interest In Going Where Angels Fear To Tread” In Deferring A Ruling On The Parties’ Search Term Dispute
Plaintiff in McMaster v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, No. 18-13875, (E.D. Mich. Jul. 24, 2020), filed a claim for wrongful termination under the American With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) against Kohl’s Department Store. Before the Court was Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel Discovery. Among the various discovery issues disputed by the parties
-
Defendant Ordered To Produce Unredacted Versions of Documents
In Nieves v Baptist Memorial Medical Group, No. 18-2748-JTF (W.D. Tenn. June 23, 2020), the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel unredacted versions of documents. The case was a class action contract and individual suit alleging a violation of federal anti-discrimination law. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant discriminated against him by,