Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:19-cv-01984_de72> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-01984_de72 RegisterActionDate "2019-12-11" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-01984_de72 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Young B. Kim: The government's motion to compel 59 is granted in part and denied in part. Pursuant to the Northern District of Illinois's Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project ("MIDPP"), litigants are required to volunteer certain categories of information and documents before formal discovery begins. (See Am. Standing Order MIDPP ("Order") at 4-5.) When doing so, litigants must decide for themselves the information and documents to be identified and produced. In other words, the producing party must ask itself what information and documents are relevant to the case's claims and defenses. The overarching flaw in Defendants' MIDPP disclosures here is that they want Plaintiff to decide for Defendants what is relevant and what is not. The government argues in its motion to compel that Defendants failed to produce information and documents responsive to Sections B(1), B(3), and B(4) of the Order for a longer time period. Having reviewed the submissions and Defendants' initial disclosure, (R. 59-1 at 5-39), and the supplement thereto, (R. 59-1 at 51-70), the court rules that Defendants failed to comply with the requirements of Sections B(1) and B(3). First, Defendants' disclosure under B(1) is woefully inadequate because they failed to identify specific individuals, their contact information, and a description of the information they possess. Section B(1) of the Order does not require the producing party to identify every individual who may have had some contact with their case, but only those who the party believes to have relevant information about the case. The Order also does not allow the producing party to simply refer to documents in lieu of identifying the specific information required under Section B(1). Defendants must recognize that MIDPP disclosures carry legal significance in that Defendants verify under oath that they believe that the information included therein is relevant or discoverable, and the information is subject to Rule 37(c)(1). Therefore, whether the government is able to discern various names and contact information from the documents already produced in response to Civil Investigative Demands is immaterial for purposes of the MIDPP. If Defendants believe that the consumers they called have relevant information, but cannot list them all because they called millions of consumers, they can then include an objection to identifying these consumers and explain the nature of the objection with particularity. (See MIDPP at 2.) Second, as correctly argued by the government, Defendants did not comply with B(3) either in their initial disclosure or in the supplement. Again, the Order calls for the categories of documents Defendants themselves believe to be relevant, not the categories that the government or any other party believes to be relevant. Defendants must describe the categories of documents and produce the same (or identify the documents already produced) if they have them or identify the custodians who have them. However, the court overrules the government's objections pertaining to Defendants' Section B(4) disclosure and the time period Defendants used for their disclosure. As already stated, Defendants get to select what is and what is not relevant. As such, if Defendants take the position that the relevant time period in this case is before March 12, 2019, that is their prerogative. As for their B(4) statements, the court does not find them to be evasive or incomplete because Defendants get to decide what facts are relevant to the claims and defenses, if they have those facts without discovery. Having said that, Rule 37(c)(1) may prevent Defendants from asserting certain defenses or may limit their options when presenting their defense if they failed to present information they had at the time of their disclosure. Since Defendants have to supplement their MIDPP disclosures, they may wish to revisit their B(4) disclosure based on this ruling. Defendants are ordered to comply with this order and serve their second supplement to their MIDPP disclosure by December 31, 2019. The court will next turn its attention to Defendants' motion to compel, (R. 58.) Mailed notice (Kim, Young) (Entered: 12/11/2019)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-01984_de72 AdministrativeID "73" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-01984_de72 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-01984_de72 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-01984_de58 @default.