Post Process

Everything to do with E-discovery & ESI

Archive for the ‘Judge Marsha Perchman’ Category

Case Blurb: Prof’l Basketball Club; Burden of proving objection to discovery requests falls to movant

Posted by rjbiii on March 11, 2008

In opposing discovery on the grounds of overbreadth, a party has the burden “to provide sufficient detail in terms of time, money and procedure required to produce the requested documents.” A “court must be able to ascertain what is being objected to. As such, unless it is obvious from the wording of the request itself that it is overbroad, vague, ambiguous or unduly burdensome, an objection simply stating so is not sufficiently specific.” A claim that answering discovery will require the objecting party to expend considerable time and effort to obtain the requested information is an insufficient factual basis for sustaining an objection.

Here, [Producing Party] has not explained why producing the emails at issue would be unnecessarily burdensome, but merely states that producing such emails “would increase the email universe exponentially[.]” PBC also states in its moving papers that the emails add “nothing to the case except mountains of work for no return.” But a bald assertion that discovery will be burdensome is insufficient in light of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(B). The Court is not permitted to presume the potential burdensome effects upon a party. The parties have already agreed upon a group of search terms that [Producing Party] previously used to search [key players’] emails and the Court assumes those terms may be used again to make further searches efficient.

City of Seattle v. Prof’l Basketball Club, LLC, 2008 WL 539809 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 25, 2008)(emphasis added)(citations removed).

Posted in 9th Circuit, Case Blurbs, Discovery Requests, Duty to Produce, FRCP 26(b), Judge Marsha Perchman, Objections to Discovery Requests, Overly Broad Request, Undue burden or cost, Vague Discovery Requests, W.D. Wash. | Leave a Comment »

Case Blurb: Prof’l Basketball Club; Court discusses scope of duty to preserve

Posted by rjbiii on March 11, 2008

Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a)(1)(A) allows a party to serve on any other party a request for relevant electronically stored information in the “responding party’s possession, custody, or control.”Only one of these requirements need be met. Legal ownership over the electronically stored information is not determinative, nor is possession necessary if the party has custody or control over the items. Further, “[c]ontrol is defined as the legal right to obtain documents upon demand.” Documents may be within the “custody” or “control” of a party even thought they are in the possession of nonparties. A legal right is evaluated in light of the facts of each case, but central to each case is the relationship between the person having actual possession of the document and the party or the transaction at issue. A legal right to obtain upon demand electronic information can also be established by the existence of a principal-agent relationship.

City of Seattle v. Prof’l Basketball Club, LLC, 2008 WL 539809 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 25, 2008)(emphasis added)(citations removed).

Posted in 9th Circuit, Case Blurbs, Duty to Preserve, FRCP 34(a), Judge Marsha Perchman, Scope of Discovery, W.D. Wash. | Leave a Comment »