Law Technology

Dendants Fail to Discharge "Meet and Confer" Obligations - Protective Order Denied

By Michael Arkfeld

Mikron Indus. v. Hurd Windows & Doors, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35166 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 21, 2008). 

"This matter comes before the Court on defendants' "Motion for Protective Order Regarding ESI."  . . . Relying on Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2), defendants ask the Court to shift the costs of defendants' remaining electronic discovery to plaintiff. Defendants allege that searching through their electronically stored information ("ESI") would generate substantial costs and yield cumulative results. Aside from the cost-shifting request, defendants raise no objection to discovery of their ESI. In response, plaintiff contends that defendants have not reasonably complied with discovery requests to date. In particular, plaintiff continues to seek communications relating to the inception and termination of plaintiff's business relationship with defendants. Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits submitted by the parties, the Court finds that defendants failed to discharge their meet and confer obligation in good faith, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Accordingly, defendants' motion for protective order regarding ESI is DENIED for failure to comply with Rule 26(c)."

Full post as published by Electronic Discovery & Evidence on June 30, 2008 (boomark / email).