In re Urethane Antitrust Litig., 2010 WL 4226214 (D. Kan. Oct. 21, 2010)

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs sought a protective order to preclude discovery of a certain category of information, court denied their motion for a myriad of reasons, including rejecting arguments of undue burden and expense where the arguments were ?largely conclusory and unsupported? and where plaintiffs evidence actually established that the discovery could be reasonably undertaken as the result of work done while responding to other requests and reasoned that while responding would ?take time?, it would not be an ?inordinate? amount

Nature of Case: Price fixing, market-allocation conspiracies

Electronic Data Involved: ESI related to criminal investigation of some plaintiffs

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.