-
Defendant’s Failure to Timely Object to Native Format Production Results in Waiver Ruling
In Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Assoc., v. California Dept. of Educ., No. 2:11-cv-3471 KJM AC., (E.D. Cal. Feb 1, 2017), the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel native format production because Defendant, rather than timely filing objection to the requested format, instead proceeded to make production in a different format.
-
Court Denies Motion to Compel by Employment Plaintiff Subject to Discovery Protocol
In Mirmina v. Genpact, LLC, Case No. 16-00614 (D. Conn., June 13, 2017), an employment law case involving, age, gender and race discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII, the ADEA, and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, Plaintiff alleged that he was treated unfairly and discriminated against at work and
-
The Choice is Yours: ESI Production Under FRCP 34
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(E) is all about choice: a party can choose to produce electronically stored information (ESI) in the usual course of business, or it can be organized and labeled to respond to the corresponding discovery requests. A seemingly-simple rule, FRCP 34 is often cited as the
-
Court Orders Defendant to Create Search Program to Query Database For Discovery Response in Robocall Class Action
In Meredith et. al. v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., Case No. 16-01102 (N.D. Ohio, Apr. 13, 2017) Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which makes it unlawful to generate a telephone call using an automated dialing system or an artificial
-
Northern District of Iowa Offers Scathing Insight into the Cost of Discovery Violations
Liguria Foods, Inc. v. Griffith Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 14-3041 (N.D. Iowa, Mar. 13, 2017) involves claims of breach of implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability. Defendant manufactured spice and seasoning blends, which Plaintiff purchased for use in its pepperoni sausages. The sausages became rancid, and
-
Court Declines to Require Defendant to Reorganize ESI Production When No Prejudice Shown
In Excel Enterprises, LLC v. Winony PVD Coatings, LLC, Case No. 16-19 (N.D. Ind., Feb. 17, 2017), a breach of contract case, a discovery dispute arose surrounding Defendant’s production to Plaintiff. A Motion to Compel was filed, and after Defendant produced 30,000 documents, Plaintiff informed Defendant that the documents were
-
Plaintiff Not Required to Produce Metadata when Defendant Failed to Request It
In Mr. Mudbug, Inc. v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., Case No. 15-5265 (E.D. La., Jan. 11, 2017), Plaintiff allegedly expanded its facilities to meet the requirements of Defendant’s contract, but then Defendant allegedly diverted business from Plaintiff and ultimately withdrew the entire contract. Defendant countersued for breach of contract. During litigation,
-
Denial of Motion to Compel In Native Where ESI Maintained In Both Electronic And Hard Copy Formats
Ortega v. Management and Training Corp., Case No. 16-0665 (D. N.M., Jan. 6, 2017) is a race discrimination, retaliation and FLSA action originally filed in New Mexico state court but removed to federal court. Plaintiff was a former detention officer employed by Defendant to work at the Otero County Processing
-
Court Denies Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Re-Organize Document Production
In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Universal Rehab Services, Inc., et. al., Case No. 15-10993 (E.D. Mich., Sept. 26, 2016), Plaintiff sued Defendants for allegedly engaging in a scheme to submit fraudulent no-fault insurance benefit claims. During discovery, Defendants propounded interrogatories and requests for production of documents upon
-
Court Declines to Compel Plaintiff to Recategorize CD-ROM Files Under FRCP 34(b)
In Sky Medical Supply, Inc. v. SCS Support Claim Services, Inc. et. al., Case No. 12-6383 (E.D. N.Y., Sept. 7, 2016), Plaintiff sued Defendants under the Federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) for mail fraud as well as for common law fraud, aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment and