Whose Search Term is it Anyway?

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[…]

Read more

Discovery Production Workflow: Lessons from Magistrate Judges Facciola & Grimm

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[…]

Read more

Playing with Fire: Producing ESI as Paper

“…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[…]

Read more

What Happens When the Requesting Party Does Not State a Form of 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[…]

Read more