-
Court Grants Performance Pulsation Control’s Motion to Compel in Part, Ordering Defendants to Produce Certain Requested ESI
In Performance Pulsation Control, Inc. v. Sigma Drilling Technologies, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-00450, (E.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2018), Performance Pulsation Control, Inc., (“PPC”) alleges that Justin Manley (“J. Manley”), a former employee, formed a competing company, Sigma Drilling Technologies, LLC (“Sigma”), to market and sell pulsation control products that he developed
-
Court Encourages Plaintiff to Craft a Narrower, More Targeted Discovery Request Through Depositions
In Rembrandt Diagnostics LLP v. Innovacon, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-0698 CAB (NLS), (S.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2017), the dispute was over drug-testing cups for screening urine samples. The Plaintiff, Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP (“Rembrandt”), alleged that the Defendant, Innovacon, Inc. (“Innovacon”), breached the patent license agreement established between both companies’ predecessors. Innovacon
-
Court Denies Motion For Corporate Email, ESI as Premature For Failure to Comply With Meet & Confer Requirements
Kellgren v. Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-644L-KSC, (S.D. Cal. March 10, 2017) is a collective litigation in which plaintiffs Erik Kellgren (“Kellgren”) and others employed as Assistant Managers in Defendants’ stores claim to have been misclassified as “exempt” from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The central
-
Court Demands Specificity in Motions to Compel Discovery
In Doctors Pathology Servs., PA v. Gerges, C.A. No 11457-CB (Del. Ch. Feb. 15, 2017), the court demanded that parties be specific as to which discovery requests were problematic, including providing specific numbers of discovery requests listed in the Motion to Compel. Here, Plaintiff had sued a former employee and
-
Walmart Granted Partial Relief From Scope of Discovery Requests re Motorized Shopping Cart Accidents
In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. B284803 (Cal. App. 2nd, Dec. 13, 2017) petitioner Wal-Mart sought to limit the scope of discovery re overly burdensome production requests that it claimed would cost thousands of man-hours to complete. Plaintiff Gracelynn Jun (“Jun”) sued defendant Wal-Mart
-
Defendants’ Motions for Terminating Sanctions and to Depose Plaintiff for More than Three Hours are Denied
The Plaintiff in Alexis v. Rogers, No. 15cv691-CAB (BLM), (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017) filed a complaint in 2015 alleging intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, sexual harassment, and retaliatory, wrongful termination. The Plaintiff also alleged the right to be awarded general damages, lost earnings, punitive and exemplary damages, pre-judgment
-
Court Finds Evidence of Spoliation in Employment Discrimination Action, Orders “Missing Evidence” Instruction Be Given to Jury
Vasser v. Shulkin, No. 14-0185, (Dist. Ct. D.C., 2017), involves an employment discrimination action brought by Plaintiff Vasser against David Shulkin in Shulkin’s capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). Plaintiff claims that the VA discriminated and retaliated against her when it failed to promote
-
Discovery Burden Per FRCP Rule 26(b)(1) Factors Insufficiently Stated in Opposition-Court Grants Motion to Compel
Plaintiffs are five related companies (“Oxbow”) that mine and sell coal and petroleum coke (“petcoke”). Oxbox’s Amended Complaint alleges that Union Pacific (“UP”) and BNSF Railway Company (“BNSF”), the railroad companies that ships Oxbow’s petcoke, conspired together to engage in anti-competitive conduct from 2004 to 2012 in violation of the
-
Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery: Court Says Defendant’s Discovery Complete
In Pothen v. Stony Brook Univ., No. cv-13-6170 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 8, 2017), Plaintiff filed multiple motions to compel discovery in a Title VII employment discrimination case. Stephen Pothen (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against the State University of New York at Stony Brook (“Defendant”) on November 7, 2013, alleging violation of
-
Court Compels Production of Non-Redacted Documents, Rejecting Confidential Business Claim
In IDC Fin. Pub., Inc. v. Bonddesk Grp., No. 15-cv-1085-pp, (E.D. Wis. 2017), Defendants produced more than 6,000 documents but redacted over 600 in their entirety. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of the redacted documents. Defendants opposed the motion, stating that the redacted information redacted is irrelevant. Under Rule