Horowitch v. Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc. » The Florida E-Discovery Case Law Database » Levin College of Law » University of Florida

Horowitch v. Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc.

Horowitch v. Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc.

Case Date: 04/23/2007
Citation: Horowitch v. Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc., No. 6:06-CV-1703-Orl-19JGG, 2007 WL 1192401 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2007)
Court Type: Federal District
Court: Middle District of Florida (M.D. Fla.)
Judge: Federal Magistrate Judge: James G. Glazebrook
Rule(s): Rule 26; Rule 33; Rule 34

Plaintiff moved to compel documents and further answers to interrogatories.


The Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel. To the extent Defendant objected based on general assertions of privilege and vagueness/overbreadth, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel, as Defendant did not specifically object and create a privilege log. However, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of some documents, because Plaintiff did not make a good faith effort to communicate with opposing counsel and resolve the dispute beforehand.

Relevant Documents:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 34)

Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 34-3) 

Exhibit C to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc.  34-4) 

Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 44)

Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 47) 

E-Discovery Issues: Motion to Compel
E-discovery Tags: Attorney-Client, Communication/Cooperation, Possession or Control, Privilege, Relevancy, Work Product

Published: April 9th, 2018

Category: Uncategorized

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

Comments are closed.