OVALLES v. SONY ELECTRONICS INC., 14-cv-137-M-PAS. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Rhode Island
Number: infdco20170224a04
Visitors: 23
Filed: Feb. 10, 2017
Latest Update: Feb. 10, 2017
Summary: ORDER JOHN J. McCONNELL, Jr. , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Halt Production (ECF No. 113) of electronic discovery from Defendant Sony. This Court was explicit in its direction to the parties that attempting to engage in electronic discovery, even in engaging in a discussion of the scope of the discovery, would be futile, and in fact could be detrimental to the proper administration of this litigation. Plaintiffs have shown that Sony has not full
Summary: ORDER JOHN J. McCONNELL, Jr. , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Halt Production (ECF No. 113) of electronic discovery from Defendant Sony. This Court was explicit in its direction to the parties that attempting to engage in electronic discovery, even in engaging in a discussion of the scope of the discovery, would be futile, and in fact could be detrimental to the proper administration of this litigation. Plaintiffs have shown that Sony has not fully..
More
ORDER
JOHN J. McCONNELL, Jr., District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Halt Production (ECF No. 113) of electronic discovery from Defendant Sony.
This Court was explicit in its direction to the parties that attempting to engage in electronic discovery, even in engaging in a discussion of the scope of the discovery, would be futile, and in fact could be detrimental to the proper administration of this litigation. Plaintiffs have shown that Sony has not fully complied with its production obligations on non-electronic discovery matters, including basic information such as recall records, retention schedules, various contracts, etc. This Court held that trying to figure out E-discovery makes no sense until "we figure out some of the underlying discovery." Burying a party with a massive production, even if it contains some responsive information, constitutes discovery abuse.
Plaintiffs' motion (ECF No. 113) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
