Tag: FRCP 34(a)(1)(A)

1
In re Actos End Payor Antitrust Litig. (S.D.N.Y. 2022)
2
NY Machinery v. The Korean Cleaners Monthly (D. N.J. 2020)

In re Actos End Payor Antitrust Litig. (S.D.N.Y. 2022)

Key Insight: On plaintiff’s motion to compel, the magistrate judge ruled that defendant Takeda was to produce “all responsive ESI to Plaintiffs, including earlier-in-time emails.” In its production, Takeda had used email threading by which a party reviews and produced the most-inclusive email in a thread. The Discovery Protocol did not permit that approach. The magistrate emphasized the need for parties to have early discussions regarding ESI to avoid later misunderstandings and disputes. Takeda’s exclusion of lesser included emails from production resulted in the exclusion of metadata associated with the earlier chain emails. The magistrate declined to impose email threading on plaintiffs and recognized that while requiring Takeda to produce earlier-in-time emails would cause additional burden, such burden is not undue since Takeda agreed to the Discovery Protocol and likely has already reviewed many of the emails at issue.

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Case Summary

NY Machinery v. The Korean Cleaners Monthly (D. N.J. 2020)

Key Insight: This dispute was over which party was obligated to translate (or pay for the cost of translating) documents that were produced by Defendants (in response to document requests) into English. Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Defendants to translate the documents and/or pay for the cost of translation, The Court denied it, finding that Defendants were neither obligated to translate the documents nor responsible for the cost(s) of translation. However, the court noted in a footnote that a party that produces documents in response to an interrogatory may be required to provide translations.

Nature of Case: Unfair Competition, Defamation

Electronic Data Involved: Documents

Case Summary

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