motion to compel
In this trademark infringement case, the court ordered the defendants to review a random sample of documents using a code name for responsiveness.
The court compelled production of files in native format, citing Rule 34, the parties’ agreement, and the potential relevance of native-format files.
The plaintiff argued his medical records weren’t relevant; the court held that he “placed his mental condition at issue” by asserting an ADA claim.
In this negligence case arising from a car accident, the plaintiff moved to compel the production of daily driving reports.
The court rejected a party’s argument that his opponent’s shortcomings justified his own deficient discovery responses as a “playground tantrum.”
Citing FRCP 34 regarding the form of production, the court ordered a party to re-produce emails in native format rather than as searchable PDFs.