*3 Defendant stands on the claim that Plaintiffs didn't ask just the right follow-up question in response to Defendant's employees' evasive and misleading answers (see
Def.'s Mot. Obj. Sanct's at 8–9); if they had, of course Defendant would have produced the data dictionary. These are just the kind of tactics that make complex litigation frustrating and time-consuming. Cf.
Murray Int'l, Inc. v. New York Tel. Co., No. 91 Civ. 5975(VLB), 1993 WL 82531, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 1993) (“The notion that a party must demand production of individual items by name is contrary to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.... If every item had to be designated individually and categorical requests were not recognized, meaningful discovery in litigation of any complexity would be impossible.”). This is only one example, but it is representative of the kind of behavior on the part of Defendant that has prompted this motion. Moreover, Defendant's protestation that this motion is really a thinly veiled attempt to cut the legs out from under Defendant's Daubert
motion is itself a diversionary tactic. Plaintiffs' expert may or may not stand up to Defendant's Daubert
motion. That determination awaits and these Courts will not grant Plaintiffs' sanction request to strike all or part of that motion. But Defendant's conduct can be addressed without going this far. Thus, while neither party is faultless here, the Defendant must pay the greater price as its tactics have led directly to this situation. Therefore, the Courts hold as follows: