Briggs v. Treatment Assessment Screening Ctr. Inc.
Briggs v. Treatment Assessment Screening Ctr. Inc.
2021 WL 4025808 (D. Ariz. 2021)
May 25, 2021
Markovich, Eric J., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to compel the Defendant, Treatment Assessment Screening Center, Inc., to produce the search results in native format. The Court also clarified that the limitation on the Defendant's email production does not extend to the emails of the Defendant's Chief Executive Officer, Chief Program Officer, or Chief Operating Officer. The parties have agreed to compromise to reduce the Defendant's burden by renegotiating the search terms and the format for production.
Additional Decisions
Deshawn Briggs, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Treatment Assessment Screening Center Incorporated, Defendant
v.
Treatment Assessment Screening Center Incorporated, Defendant
No. CV-18-02684-PHX-EJM
United States District Court, D. Arizona
Signed May 25, 2021
Counsel
Bina Ahmad, Pro Hac Vice, Imeime Aniefiok Umana, Pro Hac Vice, Katherine Chamblee-Ryan, Pro Hac Vice, Ryan Downer, Pro Hac Vice, Sumayya Saleh, Pro Hac Vice, Civil Rights Corps, Nicholas Eli Baer, Pro Hac Vice, Virginia Williamson, Pro Hac Vice, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC, Joshua David R. Bendor, Timothy Joel Eckstein, Osborn Maledon PA, Phoenix, AZ, Sarah MacDougall, Pro Hac Vice, Covington & Burling LLP, New York, NY, Stanley Young, Pro Hac Vice, Covington & Burling LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Plaintiffs Deshawn Briggs, Lucia Soria.Bina Ahmad, Pro Hac Vice, Imeime Aniefiok Umana, Pro Hac Vice, Katherine Chamblee-Ryan, Pro Hac Vice, Sumayya Saleh, Pro Hac Vice, Civil Rights Corps, Nicholas Eli Baer, Pro Hac Vice, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC, Joshua David R. Bendor, Timothy Joel Eckstein, Osborn Maledon PA, Phoenix, AZ, Stanley Young, Pro Hac Vice, Covington & Burling LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Plaintiff Antonio Pascale.
Jennifer Hadley Catero, Kelly Ann Kszywienski, Robert Arthur Henry, Amanda Zoe Weaver, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant.
Markovich, Eric J., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
*1 Pending before the Court is Defendant Treatment Assessment Screening Center, Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration and/or Clarification of Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. (Doc. 293). The Court's previous Order (Doc. 284) considered the applicable law and the parties’ arguments and fully explained the Court's reasoning for its decision. The Court will not reiterate that explanation again here.
To the extent that TASC requests clarification as to whether the Court intended to order the production of files in native format, the Court's Order clearly ordered TASC to produce the search results in native format. (Doc. 284 at 3). The parties are free to negotiate the production format.[1] As to whether TASC's email production is limited to internal TASC communications, Plaintiffs have agreed that TASC may limit searches of case managers’ emails to internal TASC accounts. (Doc. 300 at 8 n.9; 10–11).[2] The Court clarifies that this limitation does not extend to the emails of TASC's Chief Executive Officer, Chief Program Officer, or Chief Operating Officer.[3]
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Defendant TASC's Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 293). The Court clarifies its Order (Doc. 284) as noted above.
Dated this 25th day of May, 2021.
Footnotes
Plaintiffs state that they have offered to compromise with TASC about the format for production. (Doc. 300 at 10).
Plaintiffs also state that they have agreed to compromise to reduce TASC's burden by renegotiating the search terms. (Doc. 300 at 8 n.9).
See Order (Doc. 284 at 6), ordering that TASC shall produce all relevant and non-privileged emails and attachments with the exception of communications occurring solely between case managers and individual MDPP participants.