Foley Jr., George W., United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff brought action alleging fraudulent business activities in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and Electronic Funds Transfer Act. The opinion presumes familiarity with the fact, but a more detailed background can be found in FTC v. Johnson, 2013 WL 800257.
Trial court ruled on two separate motions in this decision involving a dispute over plaintiff’s form of production and third-party receiver’s motion to squash defendant’s subpoena. In the first ruling, the court denied defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to provide “organized and related” responses to requests for production. After plaintiff produced documents in “a fully searchable concordance load file with an index, itemizing all the documents by their source, description and bates-range,” defendant moved to compel plaintiff to “respond to requests for production of documents with organized and related responses.”
Relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, the court found that plaintiff’s production of documents was sufficient because plaintiff produced the documents as they were kept in the usual course of business, labeled some of the documents, and “included a searchable concordance and an index that identified the document’s source, description and bates-range.”
In the second ruling, pursuant to LR 7-2d, the court quashed a subpoena seeking email communications because defendant failed to respond to the third-party receiver's motion to quash in time.
v.
JEREMY JOHNSON, et al., Defendants
Counsel
Collot Guerard, Dotan Weinman, Janice Kopec, Washington, DC, Blaine T. Welsh, U.S. Attorney's Office, Las Vegas, NV, Joseph R. Brooke, Teresa Chen, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.Jared Green, Las Vegas, NV, Michael P. Studebaker, Studebaker Law Office, L.L.C., Ogden, UT, for Defendants.
Jeremy D. Johnson, St. George, UT, pro se.
ORDER Motion to Compel (#533) Motion for Leave to Amend (#548) Motion to Quash (#561)
*2 some form of table of contents or index of the materials produced should be provided ... Such a table of contents or index is reasonably necessary to determine, for example, from which entity or department the documents have been produced or the type of file in which they are contained. The Court, therefore, directs the Plaintiff to prepare and provide to Defendant a table of contents or index for the documents contained on CDs. In so doing, Plaintiff is not required to index each document in each file. Plaintiff, however, is required to identify the files it has produced and in which boxes or group of document numbers the files are located.