U & I Corp. v. Advanced Med. Design, Inc.

Defendant sought sanctions for Plaintiff’s failure to produce all responsive documents in a timely fashion, and moved to compel the inspection of Plaintiff’s hard drives. Defendant additionally sought to quash Plaintiff’s non-party subpoenas that did not comply with the Court’s discovery deadline.

Motions granted in part and denied in part. The Court imposed lesser sanctions upon Plaintiff (such as attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in filing motions), because Plaintiff did not justify its failure to abide by discovery rules and court orders. The Court held that Defendant was also entitled to a limited inspection of Plaintiff’s hard drives, since the benefit of the inspection outweighed the burden. With respect to the protective order for the non-party subpoenas, the Court granted the protective order because Plaintiff’s discovery requests were not timely.

Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions, Motion to Compel Inspection of Computer and Request for Oral Argument (Doc. 41) 

Plaintiff’s Response to Motion for Sanctions, Motion to Compel Inspection of Computer and Request for Oral Argument (Doc. 42) 

Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order and Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 77)

Defendant’s Second Motion for Protective Order, Motion to Stay Discovery and Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 81)

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for First and Second Protective Order and Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 84) 

Defendant’s Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 92) 

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 101) 

Plaintiff’s Notice of Compliance (Doc. 112) 

Order on Doc. 41, Doc. 42, Doc. 77, Doc. 81, Doc. 84, Doc. 92, Doc. 1o1, Doc. 105, and Doc. 112 (Doc. 113)