In this FCRA case, the court granted a motion to compel in part and narrowed the scope of discovery, but held that some information was…
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 stated that he “will produce” responsive discovery when it is available; the court ordered him to supplement this inadequate response.
In this fraudulent inducement claim, the magistrate considered the permissible scope of discovery for the parties’ cross-motions to compel.
Scope is the extent of discovery that the parties agree to provide in a case, determined both by FRCP 26(b)(1) and the individual case’s parameters.
In this TCPA claim, the court denied a forensic examination of the plaintiff’s cell phone, finding that no relevant evidence would be discovered.