Klayman v. City Pages » The Florida E-Discovery Case Law Database » Levin College of Law » University of Florida

Klayman v. City Pages

Klayman v. City Pages

Case Date: 10/22/2014
Citation: 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150253; 2014 WL 5426515
Court Type: Federal District
Court: Middle District of Florida (M.D. Fla.)
Judge: Federal Magistrate Judge: Philip R. Lammens
Rule(s): Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26; Middle District of Florida Local Rule 3.04(b)
Issues:

In this defamation action, the Plaintiff sought to compel the production of documents from the Defendants and the appointment of a computer expert. The Plaintiff requested production of documents referring or related to the Plaintiff, his client, his client’s business, a separate lawsuit between his client and a non-party, and a non-party stated in the article. The Plaintiff also sought to compel the production of documents in categories of the Plaintiffs request that where the Defendant asserted there were no responsive documents. The Plaintiff also requested the appointment of a computer expert claiming that the Defendant had concealed responsive documents. The Defendant claimed to have produced all documents they had related to the publication of the article at issue, and they moved to strike the motion to compel.

Resolution:

The court held that the additional documents requested Defendant covering publications not at issue in the litigation were over-broad and of marginal relevance. Regarding other categories of documents, court found that Plaintiff had produced no evidence to rebut the defendants claim that the Defendant had no responsive documents. The court held that the Plaintiff had not proven that the Defendant had concealed documents. Finally the court denied the request fo a third party forensic inspection asserting that the balancing of privacy concerns against utility required the motion to be denied. The court noted it was required to consider whether the responding party has withheld requested information, whether the responding party is unable or unwilling to search for the requested information, and the extent to which the responding party has complied with discovery requests. Wynmoor Community Council, Inc. v. QBE Ins. Corp., 280 F.R.D. 681, 687 (S.D.Fla. 2012)

Relevant Documents:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Production of Certain Documents and Appoint a Computer Expert (Doc. 87)

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 89)

Response in Opposition to Motion to Strike (Doc. 91)

Response in Opposition to Motion to Compel (Doc. 93)

Order (Doc. 100)

E-Discovery Issues: Motion for Forensic Inspection, Motion to Compel, Production Request
E-discovery Tags: Forensic Analysis/Examination, Relevancy
E-discovery subjects: Computer, Electronically stored information

Published: June 19th, 2020

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 5411

Comments are closed.