NORMAN'S SHORT FORM. DISCOVERY MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT'S TO PROPERLY PRODUCE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS AND CORRECTED PRIVILEGE LOG

ROBERT J. SHELBY, Judge.

Norman moves for an order compelling Respondents to produce and supplement requested documents and correct its privilege log. Norman certifies that he has complied, extensively, with the meet and confer requirements of the Short Form Discovery Order, as further set forth in the accompanying declaration.

Short Request

Norman's request for production of documents sought all documents, emails, and text with specific keywords or related to certain issues that would be relevant to his claims in this action. During the deposition of County Attorney Paul Jones, Jones stated that he coordinated the search for responsive documents, however, the individuals themselves searched their own documents and Bill Lee coordinated the search for the County as a whole. Jones admitted that, in his opinion, Bill Lee was limited technologically. While it is understandable that Bill Lee and other Respondents may be technologically limited, it does not excuse them from their legal obligation and duty to make sure a competent search for electronically stored information is reasonably conducted, and all responsive files are produced. Respondents' scattershot approach to Norman's e-discovery request raises concerns of preservation of relevant and responsive discoverable information, production of responsive electronic discovery, and possible spoliation. As an example, Respondents assert that there was an ethical wall established between the County and the Utah County Attorney's Office. Yet, no search was conducted for responsive records within the Utah County Attorney's Office, or none were provided, and Jones was unaware of any search through his own or through any other attorney's documents.

In addition, Jones also testified that he had notes of status meetings with another attorney that was not produced or listed on the privilege log. Jones's deposition took place on the last day of fact discovery. An email was sent to follow-up and specifically request Respondents search and produce records from Jones and other county attorneys because they did not supplement despite learning about the issue at the deposition.

Norman also never received documents identifying the drafter(s) of the County's decisions regarding Downs and Norman, and no drafts or even claims of privilege relating to drafts, amendments, etc. were provided. Jones testified that Shawcroft prepared the draft. The draft is not listed on the privilege log.

Lastly, the privilege log fails to identify each of the people involved in unproduced closed meeting sessions or the subject matter of the meetings. "Representatives of Utah County" is insufficient; Respondents must describe "the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed" so that Norman may be able to "assess the claim" of privilege. F.R.C.P. 26(b)(5). Further, several of the documents produced have redactions that are not logged on the privilege log.

The failure to satisfy the discovery obligations in this matter, and particularly prior to deposition testimony, has been highly prejudicial. The delay to remedy these, as well as the deficiencies in the privilege log, are grounds for rule 37 sanctions. Norman, however, requests the Court order Respondents to supplement and provide the requested documents and be awarded his attorneys' fees.