INFOGROUP, INC. v. DATABASE LLC, 8:14CV49. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20150915a26
Visitors: 24
Filed: Sep. 13, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 13, 2015
Summary: ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART , Magistrate Judge . The court held a conference call on September 1, 2015 to discuss Defendants' motion to compel, (Filing No. 125). As stated on the record, and with the agreement of counsel: • On or before September 4, 2015, the parties were required to meet and confer regarding search terms and the scope of defendants' requested email production, and to complete that meet and confer process; • On or before September 18, 2015, the defendants will produce (subject
Summary: ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART , Magistrate Judge . The court held a conference call on September 1, 2015 to discuss Defendants' motion to compel, (Filing No. 125). As stated on the record, and with the agreement of counsel: • On or before September 4, 2015, the parties were required to meet and confer regarding search terms and the scope of defendants' requested email production, and to complete that meet and confer process; • On or before September 18, 2015, the defendants will produce (subject a..
More
ORDER
CHERYL R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge.
The court held a conference call on September 1, 2015 to discuss Defendants' motion to compel, (Filing No. 125). As stated on the record, and with the agreement of counsel:
• On or before September 4, 2015, the parties were required to meet and confer regarding search terms and the scope of defendants' requested email production, and to complete that meet and confer process;
• On or before September 18, 2015, the defendants will produce (subject any specific objections stated per document request) all documents in their possession or control that are responsive to Defendants' Requests for Production;
• As to each document production request, if the plaintiffs are withholding any documents pursuant to an objection, the response shall not only raise the objection but shall also identify or describe the category of responsive documents that have not been produced; and
• If references to documents are or must be used by Plaintiffs to fully and completely respond to Defendants' interrogatories, on or before September 18, 2015, Plaintiffs shall serve interrogatory responses or supplemental responses which identify, by Bates number, and as to each interrogatory, the documents responsive to the interrogatory.
The court is concerned that absent periodic court supervision, the parties' discovery will not be completed by the deadlines set in the court's progression order, either due to delayed production or due to extensive motion practice.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1) Defendants' motion to compel, (Filing No. 125), is resolved in accordance with the contents of this order and the representations of counsel during the conference held on September 1, 2015.
2) A telephonic status conference to discuss the parties' ongoing discovery efforts will be held at 1:00 p.m. on October 2, 2015, before the undersigned magistrate judge. Counsel shall use the call-in information assigned to this case (see Filing No. 137) to participate in the conference.
3) If any discovery disputes exist as of September 29, 2015, on or before October 1, 2015, the parties shall file a joint summary, not to exceed ten double-spaced pages in length, which outlines the discovery requests at issue, the objections that are being asserted, and the parties' respective positions on the disputed discovery.
4) If discovery disputes exist as of the date and time of the scheduled hearing on October 2, 2015, the hearing will be held on the record and the parties shall be prepared to discuss the merits of those discovery issues.
Source: Leagle
