Consolidated
Lead case: 1:23-cv-11279

Massachusetts District Court
Judge:Patti B Saris
Referred: M Page Kelley
Case #: 1:22-md-03029
Nature of Suit367 Torts - Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability
Cause28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Case Filed:Jun 07, 2022

Create an account to get the full party report for this case.



Docket last updated: 4 hours ago
Wednesday, May 08, 2024
298 298 order Order Wed 05/08 5:22 PM
Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. "The court has reviewed 297 the parties' further joint status report regarding the deposition re-scheduling and appreciates their continued cooperation. The court asks that the parties file a further joint status report by June 10, 2024. The court has also reviewed 295 the parties' joint status report outlining the discovery dispute remaining after further conference on 287 plaintiffs' motion to compel. See 292 , denying 287 without prejudice to renewal and ordering further conference and joint status report. The court acknowledges plaintiffs' request for a hearing, see 295 at 1, but does not believe that a hearing is necessary given the straightforward nature of the remaining dispute. In the interest of moving the case along, the court rules as follows: The court declines to order defendants to forego a relevancy review or, in the alternative, to produce a relevancy log, as plaintiffs request. See 295 at 4-6. "[T]he scope of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) begins with relevance, so [plaintiffs are] not entitled to discovery that is not relevant. [Defendants are] therefore entitled to cull for relevance. Willmore v. Savvas Learning Co. LLC, #22-cv-2352-TC-ADM, 2023 WL 6124045, at *9-10 (D. Kan. Sept. 19, 2023) (Mitchell, M.J.) (also declining to order production of relevancy log where defendant described withheld documents adequately, including in response to request for production); Parker v. Atl. City Bd. of Ed., #15-cv-8712 (JHR/JS), 2017 WL 662979, at *3-4 (D. N.J. Feb. 17, 2017) (In the absence of good cause that does not exist here, parties have to rely on the good faith and integrity of opposing counsel to do what they are supposed to do). Neither of the cases cited by plaintiffs, see 295 at 6, persuade the court that such an order is appropriate in this, very different, case. Borizov v. Olsen-Foxon, #19 C 7549, 2023 WL 2587879 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 21, 2023), involves a claim under the Prison Rape Elimination Act, see id. at *1, and the relevance log that the Magistrate Judge gave the Department of Corrections the option of producing as an alternative to production of all allegedly irrelevant emails pertained to a relatively small number of emails, see id. at *3 n.4 Related [+]; see also U.S. Dist. Ct. N.D. Ill. #19-cv-7549, #103 (prior e-order refining ESI discovery based on "hit report," #99 at 7, listing 7 custodians with 0 to 718 apparent hits); #127 (status report indicating that DOC produced some emails and relevancy log for withheld emails); #129 (subsequent e-order denying plaintiff's oral motion to compel production of specific withheld emails). Similarly, in SRS Acquiom Inc. v. PNC Finan. Srvcs. Grp., Inc., #19-cv-02005-DDD-SKC, 2023 WL 6796431 (D. Colo. July 7, 2023), which involved alleged trade secret disclosure to new employers, see id. at *1, what defendants represented were "hundreds" of communications were between one defendant and a single prospective witness whose relationship with that defendant was determined to have a potential effect on his credibility. Id. at *3. The court accepts defendants representation that producing a relevancy log would be "enormously complicated and burdensome" where relevancy review, so far, has resulted in the production of roughly 1.8 million documents. 295 at 10. The court also declines to order defendants to run searches for "unique" search terms without using any limiting terms and connectors, as plaintiffs request. Id. at 3-4. For one, as of April 29, when the joint status report was filed, the PSC had not begun the "conferral process" that it "envisions," see id. at 4 n.4, and the court is not inclined to foreclose the possibility that the parties are able to reach an agreement about limiting terms and connectors after the PSC provides a list of unique search terms to defendants. The court will not determine whether running searches for as-of-yet proposed "unique" search terms without using any limiting terms and connectors is proportional to the needs of the case now. The parties are ordered to confer further. Lastly, the court is confident that the parties will be able to resolve the issue with respect to the ESI deposition, see 295 at 7, 11-12, without its assistance." (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)
Related: [-] ferring to review of "hundreds" of emails for relevance
Monday, May 06, 2024
297 297 misc Status Report Mon 05/06 12:31 PM
STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report on Rescheduling Foreign Depositions by Medtronic, Inc.. (Novacheck, Mary)
Related: [-]