Balfour Beatty Rail, Inc. v. Vaccarello
Balfour Beatty Rail, Inc. v. Vaccarello
| Case Date: | 01/18/2007 |
| Citation: | Balfour Beatty Rail, Inc. v. Vaccarello, Case No. 3:06-cv-551-J-20MCR, 2007 WL 169628 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2007) |
| Court Type: | Federal District |
| Court: | Middle District of Florida (M.D. Fla.) |
| Judge: | Federal Magistrate Judge: Monte C. Richardson |
| Rule(s): | Rule 34; Rule 37 |
| Issues: | Plaintiff filed a motion to compel, claiming Defendants needed better responses to discovery requests. |
| Resolution: | The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel, and noted that Plaintiff’s counsel did not make a good faith effort to resolve the issues in the motion before filing it, as Defendants agreed to produce better responses to all but three of the discovery requests prior to the order. Plaintiff sought the hard drives of Defendants used for Balfour Beatty business purposes, but made no specific requests as to material contained on the hard drives. Based on Defendants’ cooperation, the Court noted an inspection of Defendants’ hard drives would amount to little more than a fishing expedition. |
| Relevant Documents: |
Response to Motion to Compel (Doc. 36) Order on Motion to Compel (Doc. 37)
|
| E-Discovery Issues: | Motion to Compel |
| E-discovery Tags: | Forensic Analysis/Examination, Preservation and Collection |
| E-discovery subjects: | Computer, Hard drive |
Deprecated: Theme without comments.php is deprecated since version 3.0.0 with no alternative available. Please include a comments.php template in your theme. in /h/cnswww-ediscovery.law/ediscovery.law.ufl.edu/htdocs/wp-includes/functions.php on line 5516