The views expressed in this blog are those of the owner and do not reflect the views or opinions of the owner’s employer. All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information. This policy is subject to change at any time. The owner is not an attorney, and nothing posted on this site should be construed as legal advice. Litigation Support Tip of the Night does not provide confirmation that any e-discovery technique or conduct is compliant with legal, regulatory, contractual or ethical requirements.
Featured on the ACEDS blog.
Follow me on Twitter and see How-To Videos on my YouTube channel.
New tips for paralegals and litigation support profesionals are posted to this site each night. Click on the blog headings for better detail.
District of Utah Orders Production of Client Relations Management Database
May 7, 2018
On May 4, 2018 in Entrata, Inc. v. Yardi Sys., No. 15-cv-00102-CW-PMW, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76148 (D. Utah) Magistrate Judge Paul Warner granted the pkaintiff’s motion for production of the Yardi client relations management database. The court rejected the defendant’s position that reports generated by the database satisfy its obligations under FRCP 34.
The production of the data was proportional to the needs as the case as per the requirements of FRCP 26(b). Judge Warner cited the Advisory Committee’s notes to FRCP 34 which state that not all discoverable ESI fits within the concept of a traditional document, specifically mentioning dynamic databases.
Entrata also sought the re-production of documents that the defendant clawed back arguing that it had not done so in a reasonable period of time. The court rejected this motion. “While Entrata obviously takes issue with the number of days that Yardi waited to claw back the documents, the court cannot say, and Entrata has failed to demonstrate, that Yardi did not act within a reasonable time after discovering that the documents were inadvertently or unintentionally produced.” Id. at 9. A motion for an in camera review by a special master of all documents withheld for privilege on the basis of one improperly withheld email, additional documents only allegedly improperly withheld , and the sheer number of documents on the log was also denied.