FDIC v. Brudnicki
FDIC v. Brudnicki
| Case Date: | 06/14/2013 |
| Citation: | FDIC v. Brudnicki, 291 F.R.D. 669 (N.D. Fla. 2013) |
| Court Type: | Federal District |
| Court: | Northern District of Florida (N.D. Fla.) |
| Judge: | Federal Magistrate Judge: Gary R. Jones |
| Rule(s): | Rule 26 |
| Issues: | FDIC brought a negligence suit against former bank directors. The FDIC filed a motion for a protective order, which was challenged by Defendants. Defendants moved to compel the production of certain documents, citing concerns over form of production and cost-shifting due to Plaintiff’s ESI protocol. |
| Resolution: | The Court granted Plaintiff FDIC’s motion for a protective order. As the FDIC was producing the bulk of materials, the FDIC’s protective order was necessary to speed up the production of document requests, and Defendants’ concerns about a blanket protection order could be dealt with through modifications. Defendants’ motion to compel was denied in part and granted in part. With respect to Plaintiff’s ESI protocol, the Court held it was a legitimate means of cost-shifting because proportionality called for Defendant to bear some of the burdens of discovery. Additionally, although Plaintiff had not complied with the first step of the ESI protocol, it was because Plaintiff was awaiting the results of a protection order so sanctions were not warranted. |
| Relevant Documents: | Motion for Entry of Protective Order (Doc. 13) Response in Opposition to Motion for Entry of Protective Order (Doc. 14) |
| E-Discovery Issues: | Discovery Order, Motion for Protective Order, Motion for Sanctions, Motion to Compel |
| E-discovery Tags: | Clawback, Communication/Cooperation, Cost Shifting, Form of Production, Keyword Search, Possession or Control, Preservation and Collection, Privilege, Proportionality, Sanctions, Work Product |
| E-discovery subjects: | Computer, Database, Email |