Motion to Compel – Page 3

Whose Search Term is it Anyway?

February 23, 2009 Josh Gilliland Discovery, Document Review, Form of Production, Motion to Compel, Request for Production, Search Terms, Uncategorized

In Spieker v. Cherokee, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88103 (D. Kan. Oct. 30, 2008), the parties became entangled in a dispute over who created search terms for a set of specific discovery requests. The Plaintiff had served the Defendant with specifically defined Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34 requests[…]

Production of Metadata and the Importance of the Meet & Confer Process

February 21, 2009 Josh Gilliland Discovery, Document Review, e-Discovery, Form of Production, Metadata, Motion to Compel, Native File, Request for Production, Uncategorized

This lawsuit demonstrates why it is so important that parties frilly discuss their ESI early in the evolution of a case. Had that been done, the Defendants might not have opposed the Plaintiffs’ requests for certain metadata. Moreover, the parties might have been able to work out many, if not[…]

Paper Please: The Baggers of e-Discovery

February 15, 2009 Josh Gilliland Discovery, e-Discovery, Form of Production, Motion to Compel, Request for Production

Requesting the form of production is not like telling the bag boy at the grocery store “paper please.” Moreover, you do not enter a grocery store and ask for “paper please” before you have even done any shopping. That is what happened in a recent case. In theory, parties are[…]

Discovery Production Workflow: Lessons from Magistrate Judges Facciola & Grimm

February 2, 2009 Josh Gilliland Discovery, Document Review, e-Discovery, Motion to Compel, Processing, Request for Production

In my prior posting Playing with Fire: Producing ESI as Paper we looked at the dangers of producing ESI as paper. In addition to the legal analysis, Judge Facciola outlined a workflow for the parties in Covad Communications Company v. Revonet, Inc. The Defendants represented to the Court that it[…]

Playing with Fire: Producing ESI as Paper

January 30, 2009 Josh Gilliland Discovery, Document Review, e-Discovery, Form of Production, Motion to Compel, Request for Production

“…Revonet’s producing the e-mails only in hard copy played with fire. ” Magistrate Judge John Facciola, Covad Communications Company v. Revonet, Inc. I have blogged on parties failing to state a form of production in prior postings and producing parties attempting to produce ESI as paper or non-searchable TIFFs. In[…]

One Pesky Requirement for a Motion to Compel e-Discovery

January 10, 2009 Josh Gilliland Discovery, e-Discovery, Metadata, Motion to Compel, Native File, Request for Production

There is no shortage of case law on motions to compel native files, metadata and all things dealing with the form of production. However, there is one basic requirement for a motion to compel: You have to have a request for production first. Most motion to compel train wrecks[…]

What Happens When the Requesting Party Does Not State a Form of Production?

January 8, 2009 Josh Gilliland Discovery, Document Review, Duty of Care, Form of Production, Motion to Compel, Request for Production

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34 allows for a requesting party to state the form of production in their request. In the event a requesting party does not state the form of production, the responding party can state the form of production in their reply. However, if no party[…]

Be Careful What You Ask For, Because Someone Just Might Produce It

January 6, 2009 Josh Gilliland e-Discovery, Motion to Compel, Processing, Request for Production, Search Terms

There were three big “search term” cases in 2008 by Magistrate Judges John Facciola and Paul Grimm (both of whom also wear bow ties).[1] In United States v. O’Keefe, Judge Facciola wrote, “…for lawyers and judges to dare opine that a certain search term or terms would be more likely[…]