Key Insight: Where plaintiffs offered 18 emails from “critical custodians” that were produced not by defendant but by a third party as new evidence to support motion for reconsideration of order denying motion to compel, court noted differences in search terms used in respective searches and opined that requests for discovery regarding a party?s discovery efforts should be ?closely scrutinized in light of the danger of extending the already costly and time consuming discovery process ad infinitum?; rejecting plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, court observed: ??[T]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require perfection.? . . . Weatherford has reviewed ?millions of documents and [produced] hundreds of thousands,? comprising ?nearly 4.4 million pages? in this case. It is unsurprising that some relevant documents may have fallen through the cracks.?
Nature of Case: Putative class action alleging securities fraud
Electronic Data Involved: Email