Post Process

Everything to do with E-discovery & ESI

Archive for the ‘Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins’ Category

Case Blurb: U & I; Court wants Producing Party to clearly demonstrate irrelevance

Posted by rjbiii on December 5, 2007

[Producing Party] U & I argues in its motion for protective order that requiring [third party] Zimmer Spine to comply with the subpoena would be unduly burdensome, basically because the parties have already exchanged over 6,000 pages during discovery. U & I does not specify how Zimmer Spine’s compliance with a subpoena that AMD propounded would impact or burden U & I. Instead, U & I submits that the requests are irrelevant because U & I preserved AMD’s contractual rights in its distribution agreement with Zimmer Spine.
As a party to the case, U & I has standing to move for a protective order under Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ.P., if the subpoena seeks irrelevant information. See Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Southeast Floating Docks, Inc., 231F.R.D. 426, 429-30 (M.D.Fla.2005). Nevertheless, the party seeking a protective order still has the burden to demonstrate good cause, and must make a “particular and specific demonstration of fact as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements” supporting its need for the protective order.

U & I has not demonstrated good cause for the protective order it seeks…

U & I Corp. v. Advanced Medical Design, Inc., 2007 WL 4181900 (M.D.Fla. Nov. 26, 2007) (internal citations removed, emphasis in the original)

Posted in 7th Circuit, Case Blurbs, Duty to Produce, FRCP 26, M.D. Fla., Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins, Objections to Discovery Requests, Relevance | Leave a Comment »

Case Blurb: U & I; Discussion of Court’s management of document production under FRCP 26(b)(1)

Posted by rjbiii on December 2, 2007

Rule 26(b) (1), Fed.R.Civ.P., which defines the scope of discovery, was amended in 2000. Rule 26(b)(1) provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party …” Further, “for good cause shown, the court may order discovery or any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) (emphasis supplied).

The rule change was to involve the court more actively in regulating the breadth of sweeping or contentious discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P., Advisory Committee Note. The Advisory Committee intended by the rule change for the parties and the court to focus “on the actual claims and defenses involved in the action.” The rule change signals to the court that “it has the authority to confine discovery to the claims and defenses asserted in the pleadings …”

U & I Corp. v. Advanced Medical Design, Inc., 2007 WL 4181900 (M.D.Fla. Nov. 26, 2007) (internal citations removed, emphasis in the original)

Posted in 11th Circuit, Case Blurbs, FRCP 26(b), M.D. Fla., Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins, Scope of Discovery | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »