Callaway v. Papa John’s USA, Inc.
Callaway v. Papa John’s USA, Inc.
| Case Date: | 10/12/2010 |
| Citation: | Callaway v. Papa John's USA, Inc., No. 09–61989–CIV, 2010 WL 4024883 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 12, 2010) |
| Court Type: | Federal District |
| Court: | Southern District of Florida (S.D. Fla.) |
| Judge: | Federal Magistrate Judge: Robin S. Rosenbaum |
| Rule(s): | Rule 26(b) |
| Issues: | Defendant filed motions to compel discovery responses, and the court assessed the scope of Rule 26(b) and whether Plaintiff was entitled to work product protection. |
| Resolution: | Defendant’s first motion to compel granted; second motion to compel granted in part and denied in part. Responses received by plaintiffs in connection with the email were discoverable because that information did not “reflect counsel’s opinions or investigative or litigation strategies.” Such responses were factual in nature and not entitled to work product protection. |
| Relevant Documents: |
Response in Opposition to Motion to Compel (Doc. 60) Motion to Compel Responses to Second Set of Discovery (Doc. 77) Response in Opposition to Motion to Compel (Doc. 78) Reply in Support of Motion to Compel (Doc. 79)
|
| E-Discovery Issues: | Motion to Compel |
| E-discovery Tags: | Preservation and Collection, Privilege, Work Product |
| E-discovery subjects: | Email, Internet usage |
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