Birzer, Gwynne E., United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff brought a motion to compel discovery which plaintiff believed to be responsive to its first requests for production. Defendant argued the requests were neither relevant nor proportional to the issues in this case. Defendant further objected to the requests on the basis of overbreadth for failure to identify custodians of, and provide search terms for, any alleged e-mails as required by the Scheduling Order.
The court found that:
aside from simply stating the terms, defendant has not expounded on its objections to relevance or proportionality under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and those objections are overruled. Because plaintiff brings multiple claims of tortious interference with its business, the information sought by the requests appear relevant on its face, and defendant has not met its burden to demonstrate otherwise. Additionally, any concerns regarding overbreadth or proportionality may be addressed by following the guidelines of the Scheduling Order. Furthermore and importantly, despite its objections to relevance, proportionality, and format, defendant concedes it does not oppose the production of any responsive e-mails, if they exist. Defendant primarily objects to the manner in which plaintiff has failed to properly limit its request as required in order to reduce the expense, time, and burden an unlimited search would create.
Accordingly, the court granted plaintiff's motion to compel with the instructions that discovery must comply with the terms found in paragraph 2(e) of the Scheduling Order.
v.
UTILITY ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant
Counsel
James F.B. Daniels, Michael J. Gorman, McDowell, Rice, Smith & Buchanan, PC, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff.Dan C. Sanders, Monaco, Sanders, Racine, Powell & Reidy, LC, Leawood, KS, David S. Moreland, Stephen M. Schaetzel, Walter H. Levie, Meunier Carlin & Curfman, LLC, Atlanta, GA, John D. Garretson, Michael S. Cargnel, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant.