Tag: FRCP 34(a)

1
Hastings v. Ford Motor Co. (S.D. Cal. 2021)
2
Murray v. City of Warren (E.D. Mich. 2020)

Hastings v. Ford Motor Co. (S.D. Cal. 2021)

Key Insight: In litigation over product defect claim(s), Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendants to produce additional records pursuant to its discovery requests. The Motion centered around search terms that Plaintiff sought to compel Defendants to utilize in searching for responsive records. Reviewing specific Requests for Production, the Court found that they were overbroad and lacked relevance. Plaintiff’s Motion was denied, and Plaintiff was ordered to show why it (and counsel) should not have to reimburse Defendants’ for attorney’s fees and expenses in responding to the Motion.

Nature of Case: Contract Product Liability

Electronic Data Involved: Search Terms

Case Summary

Murray v. City of Warren (E.D. Mich. 2020)

Key Insight: The court agreed that plaintiff’s request for “all emails” from three custodians was overly broad and narrowed it to relevant search terms relating to plaintiff’s allegations of harassment. The court also relied on its prior ruling, directing the parties to confer regarding the search terms and if the parties cannot agree on appropriately limited search terms, they will share the cost of retaining an expert to assist them. If they still cannot agree, plaintiff can renew his motion and provide the court with an expert report substantiating his position.

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email, Personnel files

Case Summary

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