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.
E.D. Tex.: Cloned Discovery from Another Case Is Improper
February 18, 2020
Last month, Magistrate Judge Caroline M. Craven issued a decision, Travelpass Group v. Caesars Entm't Corp., No. 5:18-cv-153-RWS-CMC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26558 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2020) denying the Defendants' joint motion to compel Travelpass to produce documents it produced to the FTC and to Expedia in a separate arbitration case. These documents were already collected and reviewed on an electronic platform. Travelpass contested the Defendants' failure to specify search terms; custodian names; and date ranges for refining the FTC and Expedia productions in compliance with the discovery order, and stated that the production would be burdensome because different law firms handled the FTC and Expedia productions.
The E-Discovery order issued by the Court requires that parties make specific requests for email productions, and that requests for non-email ESI have proportional and reasonable limitations. Judge Craven concluded that the E-Discovery order covered email productions made in other case, and also stated that, "asking for all documents produced in another matter is not generally proper." Id. at *17. Cloned discovery is only permitted when the fact of the production of the documents in another case is relevant to the present case.
". . . the Court finds that an informal request that seeks wholesale duplicates of discovery produced in other litigation is improper as failing to make the requisite showing of relevance. Defendants are not entitled to the wholesale reproduction of all of the FTC Documents and Expedia Documents simply because there may be overlap between the issues in those cases and those in this case." Id. at *20.