Electrolux Home Prod v. Whitesell Corp

Filing 691

ORDER denying 665 Motion Leave to Take Additional Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions of Defendants' Corporate Representatives; denying 667 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 09/10/2015. (thb)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

IN

WHITESELL CORPORATION,
Dliirr1-iff

cv l-03-050
ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS,
ANd
r N C . , H U S Q V A R N A ,A . 8 . ,
PRODUCTS,
HUSQVARNA OUTDOOR
INC.,

Defendants.

ORDER

n+ c .u' v r r a r r r e !
v
! iJ n

/

in

Revised

Joint

2015.

The parties

Discovery,
taken.

in

which

are

(i)

('tWhitesel-l-" ) "Motion
Pursuant

to
for

Products,

currently

in

of

h\/

Discovery

Whitesel I

( " E H P ") .

30 (b) (5) ,,' and

Sanctions

.r.d

5,
of

wilf

be

on October 15, 2015.

AqainsE

relaLing

to

cornoraf ion's

for Leave to Take AdditionalP.

Thi

stage

witnesses

the Court are Lwo mo!ions

Pl-aintiff

t-ha

on February

t.he Third

fact

schedul-ed to close

Fed. R. civ.

Inc.

hv6^^hFl.r.r^rrarnp.l

depositions

pending before

denosifions.

id

Pl-an (",JDP" ) entered

Discovery

This stage is

Presently

Mot.ion

^.dd

fhi-

Depositions

(2) whit.esell,s
Efectrolux

Home

I.
In

its

Whitesell

and

document.s and
the

your

your

relevant

matter

of

every person

"Identify

document retention

efforts

informatsion
subject

58:

Defendants,

to

InEerrogatories

regarding

and

Doc. Nos. 624-2,
Defendan!

of

Int.errogatory

asks in

procedures

describe

set

Third

who has knowledge

BACKGROI'ND

his

to

preserve

to

policies
produce

and

fitigation,

lhis

or her knowledge."

and
(See

tl se and 625-II , fl 58.)

EHP responded

as f ol-lows:'

individual-s
have
knowledge
following
[T] he
policies:
regarding EHP's document retention
Don

Market:

i-F^rn.f

i^h

rFl-Fnf i on
^,^^1'^6
relevant

Mr.
raaarAina

Market

has

I'HD'c

general
.l^-lrmart-

nol icres
and EHP's
efforts
to
A^^1'm6hr- d
and
informaEion
to this
l-j-t j-gation.

sean Scarboro3 Mr. Scarboro has general
information
regarding
EHP's efforts
to
produce
documents
and
information
relevant to this litiqation.
,ta6on Edwards: Mr, Edwards has generalinformation
regarding
EHP's efforts
to
nrndrrce

relevant
(Doc. No. 625-rr,

d.\.r rmpn t-q

and

infOfmatiOn

to thr-s l-itiqation.

aE 74-75,

tl 58.)

1
Defendant
Husqvarna
Outdoor
ProducLs.
("Husqvarna") interposed an objection
fnterrog'atory
Eo
fha

crrnrrnd<

reasonabl-y
evidence.
of August
respond to
No. 683, at

t-h:l-

t-hF

.rrlFql-i.\n

.\lrar'l

v

hr/ii,.l

rnd

Inc.
58 on
h^t-

calcufated
to lead to the discovery
of admissibfe
(Doc. No. 624-2, aE 4!-42, !T 58.)
At the hearing
L4, 20L5, Husgvarna represent.ed
that
it
would
Interrogatory
58 (Hrg. Tr. of Aug. :-4, 2015, Doc,
L27) .

Through

r r y ! re rc F r r j q u
tah o sr iu -

twice.

The

wishes

idcnl-

in

-ef irra<

first

the

nrnaar{rrrac

i f icd

i 1 -c

af

q

f ^rl-

to the merits

/lah^ai

a

ruling

'i

with
m.r-

exten!

^F

^r\r

Fha

Frr.1.tal-

l-imited

..r'l

issues

Lo

policies

IF.f

qR

.)rl/

ayrd

and

nr6drrae

Issues

to the l-itigaEion.

on

f l.rrFF

a

filed

.q f eeS

rlannci

nr

l ina

e v e v ! r r e _ I

=nrl

fi

motions

consideration.

II.

lhis

l -. : L a

ac

motion
and

fnr

The motions

in the

for

will-

*^!.r ^r

Frr'l e

on

in

aSSoCiFl-

EHP

had

Dissatisfied
the

t-he

sanctions

subiect

dFn.\ci

ii.\n

aqainst

Fl-l wi j-h

f -ki

EHP,
n.r

f hc

inrr<:

briefed

and are

now be addressed

l(l

in

ripe

for

turn.

DEPOSITIONS

r . i L . rs ^ - ^ r .
t
2nfh)

Jason Edwards

No. 58.

ra\rar]pd

cOStS

q:nat-

of Mr.

WhiteselI

rFnreSentativeS

TO TAKE ADDITIONAL

!l^.r ^
r-^

trR

motion,

knowledqe

have been fuIIy

MOTION

rlr!!JuYlr

Edwards'
N^

af j-.\rna\/'

eei^n

rlrcqFr^lte

the deposition

Mr.

of

has

Both

Tnf

corporate

the case woufd be explored

of

6f

<1aF]'i n.r

nermi

l- .\

was issued

.\nF

Tht-arr^drl-

whitesel-1

ti

be

in response to Tnterrogatory

the

r-a7

(

)aj

identified

l. ^

would

relevant

and take

chose to notice
.Trrl\/

the

depose

resnr)nsF

additional

t-i^h

Before

^ra

take

Eo

document ret.ention

documenLs and j-nf ormation

da^^n/l

to

deposit.ion

corporation's

:nd

pertaining

l-eave

Whitesell

depositions,

regarding

for

motion

its

rlonnei

seeks
tinn

Ehe
nF

court,
^^?h^rrt.a

s

representatives
an

rho

tu- v rn i+nL<J
n ,

F^

jFd

'i

dht-

prior

its

t-^

ir

\

itc

h y ^ / l r r - t - i lU
^ULr (.
U r l'J]r,
P!

Trl-

r-h6
LrrE

^r.\.lrr..1-

ATl^drl-

i.\n

Fmr

l\T^

<e

Supp.

Whitesell

of

'
I n.\.,

T{.\

directs
nnlrz

(Doc.

r,)

at

624-4,

frlrm

^y/r6yFv

I-I

lTf

Ex.

I

ThF

from

C, at

dj-scovery

<la.'^rld

30-31.)

"Don't
lr;

case,

I

l

il

n.r

that

the
aani-

in

l-haea

Market.,
e^

and

responses

delete
a-mii

2.)

information

befieves

Don

at

"Defendants

i nr .Y' g r r v .va i rgd r I + r. l\:1 . \ l - . ai n i
r
vu +
9rr!p9

EHP's

(Pf . 's

666,

conduct,

yaaini

r-nnr..enienf

for

to destroy

and produce

l ^r.^l-

as foffows:

f .)

motion

No.

Thus, Whilesell

r-ho

ih

f .\

cfaims. "

Doc.

evasive

e-mai1

first
.)^^c

m:i'l

Leave,

or

l- \r

raqy\.\n<14

damaging to Defendants'

2-3.)

the recipient
No.

is

whifaqFll

A)L-c)

rr.)icc

.rf

^.?i

Eo two e-mail-s2 to contend

lo preserve

failed

(Id.

The

c6hr-6m1.\-,

^F

Whitesell's

of

based upon this

incomplete

nrarranf

"

for

Mot.

believes

have provi-ded

'l:.,k

2006

their

l:alz

whiteselL's

to

j-.t

ina.ladll.fD

al-so refers

that

have intenLionafl-y
whiEesell

t <r

p'HD'c

responses

ra<nnn<req)

on

+l-ra

I.hrq.r\rtrnt

related

argues

materials.

reliance

at

it.erates

have a "management- l eve I directi-ve

Memo. in

i-.r

I c

mel.j-ts

the

discovery

diqc,nrrarrr

haf-/jl-F-

=rd

Whiteself

documenLs directly

.\rdFr

. v l.r \ }m -n p l
v. r /v

^€

n r e i r t du s l u E e
i
c
PlsJ

request., whiteseff

No. 58 (the subj ect

that. Defendants

that

i

On

Defendants'

1v-. \
e

^n

^f

Tnterrogatory
.

its

improper

^^,'],hFi
UU!TLtPL-L

^r1r

sanctions)

rFnrcscnl-afives

about

m^t- i.\r1c

u ra L . r.v u r f
w i fh )r u

arrLErlvyeuuly,

fhF

Defendants'

incl-ude

t-ha

ra-/lan.1qF

complaints

/ :e^ r r rvr ar ou d u
q r L
v

+r--r

As grounds for

t.ime.

a fater

i*

licrad

No. 58

in response to Interrogatory

identified

it

dated
email-,

ih

,nnc

e-maif Kim [Rio] , use
hrnar

t-r:i

l

\,,

shoufd

permitted

be

to

ESI ("el-ectronically

Defendants'

and managemenL and

an

lnofor,.l:11f

a/

1

of

court

haar-l

rlcnnci

t-i.rh

in

f .rLarr

representat. ive,
Ieave of court
matters

i^h

is

plr'l c

?olhl

the

of

^e
qf

\ +14:

of

the

l6l

30 (b) (5) depositions)

?' l
J

See Procaps S.A. v.

lhis

May 5,

whether l-eave is required
.rr5nf

i rr.r

t- ha

f ircrt-

-^rir.ra'^

as to

v.

whether

take

on

RuLe 30(b) (6)

RanbaXV Inc.,

to

t-a

2012 WL

the inconsistent
successive

Rule

.

issue."

L\1/

l-ho

l- i.rr.\F.:

original

seek feave

of Florida,

F]a.

l-eave

Co re-depose the representative

District.

(S.D.

clearl-y

has al-ready

if

Taking a cue from an unpubl-ished decision

*3 n.2

in

)

l.16la<q

rlpnaqi

deponent's

need to

gaps

deponent

"the

1414308 (M.D. FIa. Apr. 20, 2Oa2) (discussing
treatment

depositions

a part.y must obtain

saF p|radue Pharma L.P.

desionafinn

fact

have been inconsj-stent

required

outside

(-A

rl^a'^fl-

courts

Whitesell

"significant

"

if

th^

ia:

) protocol

issues.
for

about

Procedure 30(a) (2) (A) (ii)

Civil

a deposition

take

danncod

the

a stipul-a!ion,

absent

to

^?^/l,r^t-

dnnrrmort-

Rul-e of

that,

production

for

expfanation

Federal
states

document

informat.ion

scored information"

cannot adequatel-y prepare

cl-aims that. it
wit.hout

general

discover

ra.fl1a<t-

a.l

in the Southern

Court need not. address

Ehis

,'t'horny

Patheon fnc. , 2OL5 WL 2090401, at
2015)

(not

deciding

the

issue

of

to take a second 30(b) (6) deposition
1a:\rA)

Trret- ai,.l

r - l - ri c

,'-arrzf

rri

I 1

lL-r lr - r 6
s

h.Tl-iac

l-^

ye!

See Fed.

tL-qr^Lri4n . r
r
:

R.

ilrqf

is

rulel
to

f ir'ht-Fr

impose additional-

right
facts

future
Ac

l- i.in

with

:q

nrnrri

Nor does this

Procedure.

discretion

scope and extent
limit.
dpd

warrant

hrr

l-hF

Fc, rein

been

hearings

in

:J $ti

scheduled

are

Fa.lcr^

prejudice

ruling

di scoverv

in

unt.il

specifically

the

d

/-^t!?F

any

should

y^-/l,,
-l
aare4uy

!.-d

f.hi s case with

cl-ose

designed

of

to

recenE.

its

hearings

discovery.

These

any perceived

address

-

afready
t- ha

t- ar

and productive

had two fengthy

m^f

M hrf
\
' l l q l a ] P c l rL g f v g u y d. Pf -

t . l - \a

i n

norroirrert

And, as mentioned, the Third Stage of discovery

cfose

cannot

justify

in

a l-itt1e
f urt.her

hr.ave been

over a month.
delaying

t.his

In

or

short,

case or

in

,t^^rlm^FF

addressed.
to

Whitesel-f

hearings

set

f ort.h

by

discovery

production

set

l

such request.

t-hi

i
u f u oa .

of

the duration

t.o seek leave under Rule 30(a) (z) (A) (ii)

n e rr l yr

court
fThe

Order of August L7, 2015, in which monthfy discovery
have

(1993

note

broader

does not

ar..'arrl-

dFrl.)nenf

dj scowerw.

of

on the

rufing

and developments

1 -h a

eftemnfed

This

F.a.h

(b) (2) enabl-es "the

extent

restrictions

donnqi

>rrr

Rules of Civil
party's

On the

.\f

committee's

advisory

." ) .
af

f i.\1'r

to pro\zide the court

intended

vvvyv

dcn^ci

t.hat paragraph

rain

discovery
v!

^no

P.25

Civ.

Amendments) (stating
fu v/ - \ J ! vai ra n
kv '

under Rule 26(b) (2) (A) to limit

broad discretj-on

its

exercise

are

being
is

the Court

adding

to

its

al-ready

expense by allowing

tremendous

discovery

about discovery.
dir.a.l-

written
F.
L a f s tf la i
y

or

Fi,

nal

a

.\r

exacting

mails
Court

to

same conclusion

Upon t.he foregoing,

document
af€^rfF

relevanc

.\r\r

idencify

t-^

nrae6rr'6

ir€ y
r h r r^e rm - l -

aE t.his

i^n

^r

wield

its

The two e-

iuncture.3
for

motion

l-eave to take

DENIED.

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
qa

l\T.i

every

retention

- rr ,
a h ay

purpose do not lead Lhe

that

(doc. no. 665) is

III.
Thrarr^.raj-

J

i.p

del-iberatefy

and direction.

Whitesell's

additj-onal- depositions

EHP to

for

r.\r,

to

nr:-f

the courL will

force

championed by Whiteseff
the

dFql-

(\a

a

unspoken,

conducL

t.he Court detect

should
m:n''l^f

fitiqation,

to this

powers wilh

inrr

spoken or

.\l-rfr1q/-:f

document refevant
punitive

i rra

unwritten,

ann.-ar'l

Moreover,

to

Whiteself

urre

person

pol-icies
:nri

to the fitigation.

r

f rr^-harr

who has
and

nrnrirrr-c

i n.flti

rrt

knowledge

procedures
dn.rrmants

In identifying

of

and
and

T1-

(1)
(2)

.reL6.l

EHP's
EHP/s

infOfmatiOn

Mr. Jason Edwards,

' It shoul-d be noted that. Defendants conLend the e-mails
hawe l"reen oiwen strained
and false
interpretations
.
Afso,
production
Defendanls offer
two documents from whitlself's
which they argue demonstrate Whitesel-l-'s "intent
to restrict
written
about issues
communications
at t.he heart
of the
(Defs. ' Opp'n to Pl. 's Mot. for
current litigaEion
This Court wifl
Leave, Doc. No. 674, at 4.)
not impute
meaning to any of t.hese "smoking gun" documents without
evidence of conlext.

EHP explained
the

about

Trr

quest.ions
.

he was a person with

that

fatter
hi

c

category.

rlanaci

f

inn

pertaining

i q

E'.]h'rrA<

Do you know who at
^^m^=hr,,

<

on

Is

there
-^mh.

fTe

a writlen

tharal

nol

i an

na

rach^nai1-\'i

Electrofux

rar- ahii

several

asked

rai-ani-

the

How does EHP maintain

t-ha

first.

to EHP's document

Who was tasked
with
preserving
le-maifsl ?
l-ha

information"

"general

l i .i

I i far

anrj

= .r
* .n J r

document retention

poficy

're

f hal- vo

is

you

lnr

nVaA

yvrrLy

what

aware
h,a-it-

t-oh

l. i nd

whether
^7

-w:rc

.]f

as

a€

to

of

rrnh

i g

irri nc

there
^-

^f-t

F^

ls
1-^,,

a
,.^...-

.tr|.Jw y(Jut

11996l

from

re tent ion
1-*F^ao.}J
ueP

.i r -

r rn?

Do you know whether
^7

of

retained?

Do you know what backup systems at. any time
2008 to today were used by E1eclrol-ux?

i-1,

?

i-ts records?

nnl
i ar
E,-.--:)|

Are you aware of
by Electrolux?

h^l

of

nrr)r:edUl.eS

n\.'"

how and where data

Are

nf

has knowledge

i ci es

.

ac

hf5^Fi^a

^€

I .ht-^hd

E'16^f

there
,^llrv

l.,aF^*^

is
ie

t-horr

a procedure,
f^
rra

pol-icy

ata--i--.lata
re:cci

off
angfl

OI.

de s troyed ?
Do you know how EHP determined which individuaLs
it woul-d issue litigatj-on
holds to?
Do
.'^f

you
c.r.\ri

know
Fq

instructed

r\f

how

the

m:l-ari.r'l

company

determlned

c

a m.n l" .* a r r a , - S
*. .
-r a

t- h.'|-

the
Wef e

to preserve?

Who was t.he person at
who was in charge of
data was preserved?

Electrofux,
if you know,
ensuring
that. elecE.ronic

Do you know whether EHP has
image backups of the drives?
Are you aware of

performed

the number and type of

mirror

servers?

And I woul-d imagine that. you also are noL aware
of the schedu]e lhat
Efectrofux
uses to purqe
servers of information?
Do you know what. EHP'S practice
are for archivinq e -mails?
(Edwards Dep.,
nothing
Mr.

Doc. No. 672-6,

to offer

Edwards

questions,

by way of his

also

except.

answered
that

caken by fT and given

he

back,

and procedures

aE 2I-46.)

Mr.

Edwards had

responses to these quest.ions.

"no"

to

testj_fied

aII

of

that

the

his

following

compuEer was

but he did not know what fT did to

Can you teIl me what electronically
stored or ESf
searches
were run
for
the
documents to
be
produced in this case in response to Whit.esel-l,s
discovery
requesl?
Can you teLl- me what search
how they were sel ected?
CouLd you tell
document s ?

who the

terms

custodians

were used and

were

of

the

Can you tell- me what time periods were invo]ved
in
t.he
efforts
produce
to
documents
and
information
relative
to this l_itiqation?
Could you te1l as of what date EHp exercised its
efforts
to produce documents and information
refevant
to this l-itiqation?
Could you tell
identification
inf ormat ion ?

what testing
was done to ensure
of
respons j_ve document.s and

coul-d you tefl
f ,.\ hr6l.ant

Can you telf

were put

what safeguards

^1F-ra1-

i.rn

.\f

ynetada1-

an\r

me who the cusLodians
fn

5a!cauq!u-

in place

a"

were in charge

n!r a e a n f r u
v v cr
y

el rcr:t.i9n

Of

met.adata?
Do you know whether custodians
were interviewed
what
of
to
sources
electronicafly
determine
j-on mi-ght exist?
stored inf ormat
(Id.

at

47-48. )

lOlhl

l6)

wifness

cffnrj-c

ft

to

have

.tocuments
something

to

crf

r ^ r h F j -e r
h

locating
following

the

Mr.

Edwards'

folLowinq

March
denial-

these

to

the

igsues,

-re^

was t.hen tailored

t'o

had

anw

:n

e-maifs

of

20]-5 hearing.

f n r ' 1^o^. t s ^ r ^ - -o
lr L DLEP
r

urLa

trYl

production
Don Market

-r

/ |

di,.lfl

Then

or

t- :ka

what

i nwol wemenf

cert.ain
After

individuals

a few m.inutes

such production,

in

.rf har^

pfepare
lL r rra
-h

Iu

u4^c

uu

cl- Fn<

this

and

1it- i.rat- i.\n

didn't

:1.r\/

raarrdir.r

documents

I

yuu

r ocuments
i

Yaurrst

}ocating any deleted
to Don Market.?

does

inf.\rm^i-inn

A:

on some of

any invofvement

of

releVant

EHP'S

of
the

occurred:

v.

A:

offer

of

Edwards

Mr.

12,

information

Rule

a

in fhis

producing

and

expect

to

information

and

r ^ 7 hl i-a c F t ' l / c . ' r r a s r i o n i n o
i -rrrl i ri eq

far-fetched

r , r if h r r a n e r e r

idenfifiad

l-.\ nr.\drr.e

litigation

not

is

'- .\

mean,
I'IID,

information
f h.rn

that.

n
.
L
y !r A n r} / s r r a uls

10

what-

nr^,.lrr-A

<

af

"-rn9

f^11-

1 -a

f aef

have

'

general

have
<

rel-evant
rrnrr h:rre

You would
iI
r s ,

email-s from

- r- 'v t - h
-n,

you

that

for

nrazlrrna

to

.i

f ied

t.o ask

thls
tO?

che

Q:

A:
(Id.

what you have testified
to,
do you
than
Other
EHP's
further
regarding
any
information
have
produce
documents
and
information
to
efforLs
l-itigation?
relevant
E.o this
No.

at
]a'

62. )
\411E l, L-LUrrD

producing

your

Lrrrs

did you take any other

laptop,

l
- L l-F i L- rf 9^a . L
L- i F

58?"

--

{-LlF

,
rl s-.nr ^r rY - ^u6c r y

Lrr4L

Edwards responded:

Mr.

produced purchase history
followed

at

data,

different

65-66. )
Mr.

Excel

rnt- 677^^3t-^vr'

information

other

not
^r^

rrnqseqqFe

201-5,

by

EHP's

IT

relevant

to

i
r n tr -L rr r ^ v .yf q ru v r J
r a rl d ^ rt

(Id.

been

informaEion

on

Market

accessed

because

of the dozens of other

reviewed

Don

EHP's efforts
no

that

spreadsheets

have

regarding

ih

regarding

where f
Whitesell

producing

of

testified

testimony,

58

€^rl-h

issue

counsel.

Based upon chis

daF

besides

to which Mr. Edwards responded:

Edwards

Don Market or outside

should

id

On the

in

and Mr,

produced Microsoft

r-crf ein'rr

steps

dala out of our system. "

Edwards

occasions

information/

Edwards

"so

"[T] here were instances

up: "Anything else?",
(Id.

history

asked:

to produce documents and information

EHP's efforts
r!,i-

'

-..^^ts] ^--

rEw

purchase

five

had

to

ten

requested

t.he PMS system

which he sent either

and
to

aL 66-7I.)

Whitesell

argues

identified
he

in
n.)

had

t.hat Mr.

resDonse
narf

.icrr'l ari

to
zed

t.o produce documents "and
that

is

di fferenf

fhan

,"nv

EHP employees whose computer was

department
11

in

connection

with

lhis

'I r-i.r^l- .i
i
nn,,

,-

lpt

Doc. No. 668, at

EHPpoints

n r nvrvlsrv r n i - e + iv r n n
.

P!

Whi fFsFl

I

l r n n r ^ r ' le d . r c

l s

emails

expl-ains
the

role

that
of

in

672-9,

i n

assisting

raqn^naa

actorney

certifies

complete

and correct

Fed. R. Civ.

Ehe

t.opic

Ehat

of

wouJd have

[edJ in discussions

his

fearned

about the

wit.h providing

and damases-"
8.)

f

(See Edwards
EHP further

Don Market

t-.r

so that

Finaffy,

that

civil

working

with

outside

Mr. Edwards was necessariLy

Procedure

the discovery

t.o the best

and belief

in

in

i - _r ^ _ - '
_ 7 r-f a- r_ d r l_^"r * _ _ - y .

1-ha

Under Federal- Rul-e of

i-nf ormation

I,

as a person
contends

[and] assisted

time

2Q1-4 Mr. Edwards succeeded Sean Scarboro

counsel- in the litigation
i n., l rrda/i

Ex.

that.

document.

EHp

Whitesell

documents rel-ated to counterclains
Doc. No.

end

Of

the

about

explore

Mr. Edwards al-so "participat.

Decl-.,

therefore

amount

identified

mal. f ers.

t.horoughl-y

of post-2006

is

data in preparation
the

E.lw^rds

knowl-edge, otherwise

collection

wi 1h

he was not

f hc)sc

not

did

professed

nf

it

argues that

Sanctions,

out Mr. Edwards's testimony

Mr

since

for

Mot.

EHP.

mrarre

askino

policies

Wh-Lteseff

that

EHp

r

sncnf

retention

^€

pull-ing purchase history

with

he assisted

<rrnn

Whitesel-I

3.)

In response,

t ^ r it -h

in

to sancLi.ons aqainst

entitfed

Far

M6m^

formed

P. 26(S) (1) (A) .

of

responses provided

E.he attorney's

after

a

reasonable

The attorney

L2

26 (g) , a signing

further

are

knowledge,
inouirv.
certifies

that

is not int.erposed

the response

harass,

to

increase

the cost of

Rrr] e

26 {crl {1)

litigation.
f hc

al lowq

certification
luscrt.rcaE..ron.

lg:

reach

the

fook

the

at

concfusion

issue,

however,

EHP violated

that

resDonses

under

Whiteseff's

motion

sanct j-ons

case is
hc:ri

ncr

focused
lu th re - r lL

affi

ra.r..hi

r1.r

l-ha

a.\rrrl-

discovery

d - ri L v l L r J
s

c

nnnr,

r , r es

r^7.e

r1.r

the
f h^f

While
r^

month

fater,

'l'h i c

l.rrrf

fhe

reed

a-^rrrl-

567)

ira'acanl-

f hF

F!-^

i- hair

WhiteseIl
rrn

f ha

1.am-:inad

naa''l

hnnafrr'l

13

cannot
of

DENIED.
1.a

j- hi

^f

e

2015 discovery
Were

On

a more

in no way concludes
h^at-

fha

.:nnrnrah

fifed

is

rr^<t-

riarties

-L^"-h
Lrr(./uYrr

i y'r

court

certification

March 12,

i h
rrr

i !

the

no.

the Court

hl
a^a
Ptquc

Edwards's

circumstances.

1 .h a

hnnefrr'l

f iL-i

Mr.

Upon a more

its

(doc.

lrrcinn

..\^r'\ar:l-i\ra

a

t.he

Following

track.

z-i cnf

d i qanrrprr,'

ha:ri

t- hi

paramount.

hoanmi

than

for

sancti"ons appears

and unproductive.

discoverv

Trr

substantiaf

perspect.ive,

From Whiteseff's

contemplative

a

if

sancLions

without

motion for

Whitesell's

seemed needl-ess

deposition

rule

.

!<ufe 26\g) \3).

blush,

well-grounded.

tmnose

f o

this

needlessly

or

Rufe 26(g) (1) (B) (ii)

rd.

Cclrrrt

viol-ates

At first

delay,

cause unnecessary

such as

purpose,

any improper

for

a v h s // e u r L i ra n 1 e^t a ]
r L

nq1 . f u f e p c
i a
yrt

l-I^srAl'ar

motions

f ^r

t-h.l-

^r1^l- har

r.ha

r ld
en r u

to

compel-

r t u u ve n n r r o rLr! r
i
vr
v

n r r r i av e e !
J

I/4!

'lacc

r v urf r ' l r l
a s
u

l

many of

resolve
t- ha\/

di

d

.in

M^ 1.,.'h

.Fr,r.\ d:l/e

I af Fr

rn /h\

Aanaeiriang

identified
its

in

witnesses

this

Of

for multiple

with

672-7,

Ex.

position.

G. )

three

No. 58.
depositions

it

a month later,
pay part

Whit.esell

Whiteseff

offered

of

Mr.

v y +

v v v r r v s e 4

H.)

pointed

y^r^hr-i

^-

-^l

to produce

in the motion

the deposiE.ion of
sent an email

iniaa

rha

:t-

whitesell
On these

filed
fact.s,

t.o confer

.rah^di

to

and expenses

ln^.

expl-anation

N.\

of

its

t{hitesef l-'s position
testimony

of

(Doc. No. 672-8,

out that Whitesefl,s

I,vtJvr!u

e s

because EHP prov.ided

no

data.

w

from the Court on

costs

Edwards's

purchase history

Rule

rFnrFsFnfaii\rFs
r

resul-ting

into

counsel-.

limited

EHP refused

of the fees,

assisLance with

effor!

Flip

EHP responded that

because

EHP further

as

courL

leg'al

take

the Edwards deposition

(See id.)

basel-ess

(Id.)

open

and atraqirre answer" to the interrnrr:tnr.'

"f^lsF

/r^^r,h^h-

-^

d^,,^r.F

than seek guidance

Rather

Nearly

in connection

in

changed its

the

Interrogatory

EHP demanding that

was

face

Whitesel,l- charged headlong

issue,

Mr. Edwards.

r

aarrnaal

npe,

supra.

discussed

to

I ?

2015, whitesell

on June 3,

/4\

face

issues

their

lion

concentration

his
Ex.
on

WaS Unwarranted.

itss motion for sanctj-ons two days later.
the court

is

unimpressed by Whitesefl-,s

on the matter. n The duty-to-confer

*

is not an

The spirit
and purpose
of
the
meeE-and-confer
requlrement interposed by Loca] RuLe 26.4 and Federal Rules of
Civil
Procedure 25 (c) and 37 (a) (2) is no less importanL in
this contexL - a motion for sanctions under Rule 26 (q) - even
t4

6mhi1'

W!

f^1fr.

lit1'

-'OO IVZZr

accede
.nnsi

to

. t - L tu e m L t - u
-a, ' np
a

fLn
v
r^

a'i r

.1-

Th-

d.D

a! r r i !
e

/roa.rrrni

f

nn

rh^rrt-

rlY

rarnri

.li

-l-lg

rohc-t-

F'

f.\r

confer

be
and

Marketinq

?d

I RO

.r.r^d

1R6-R?

F:it-h

simpl-y

not

cirrrt- F

to

Naviant

See
Tn,,-

hardly

can

-ffort

Y\JrJu

nn

.\nc

a party

demands that

information,

'Flrnkor

zi

2n1n

M6].F.)\/Fr

^i
^h.r{-^
L1r-YuLe.

T.:rr1r

T-d

"nlnl

4-r!L

a

d

rr

t^n2\

n nv nr fr
!
r

--

ou q f a! yl i f - Y
r

1q

which simply
for

A.l1'arl-

nrrl- d.l.\r

qani
uLyu

Ce .
ur

demand

racl-jlrra

c^'l rrf i^rrc

Mar.'l ih

request,

every

dered

t-l- \r

/^
\ J . u .n

_'l

d.V

or discovery

fetter

/"A

MI a lrr r i
r- L
r

Ff

f.irl-

demanding

acquiescence) ; Will-iams v. Board of County Comm'rs of Unified
cov't

of

698,

wvandotte

699-700

which

county and Kansas CiLy,

(D. Kan.

addresses

confer) ; Porter

discovery

v. Brancato,

confer'

means more

counsel ." ) ft

remains

q:riefied

Lrccn

Whitesefl

hv

discussed

Additionally,
response
rlrrtrr.th

that
thirrL

dispute

letter

its
the

to Interrogatory

j-hF

drri-v

fo

subparagraph.
hafnro

cirrninc

mailing

a

to be seen whether

FlFIp,s

exnlanaf

i.ln

is

of

i<1

nrlf

Every litigant
rlicnnrrcrv
w
v + v v v

v ! , l i

to

reasonabl-e effort

letter

to

Whitesell
itS

opposing
wou]d have

disclOsure

had

specificity.

unconvinced

that

No. 58 vras for

cnnfer

duty

greater

concerns with
Court

satisfy

A. 96-2208-KHV, 1997 1,,1L

No. Civ.

than

192 F.R.D.

between counsel

does not

*l- (D. Kan. Feb. 24, :-997) ("'A

150050, at
to

(single

2000)

Kan.,

qnalif

an improper
in:llrr

purpose.

avnra<<cd

has a duty Lo "(1)
rA^,,Aci<

EHP's

=nzl

in

stop and

n?^t-

a^r;

i'6

m o t i o n s ; a n d / ( 2 ) a s c o m m a n d e db y 1 o c a l r u L e , c o n f e r b e f o r e
involvinq the Court. " Hernandez v. Hendrix Produce, Inc.. 297
F.R.D. 538, 540 (S.D. Ga. 20L4).
15

T.l

f hF

..)nf

rarv.

evrrLrq!l

Here,

a mousetrap.

f hF

Fhe den.rsi iions

surmises

the Court

of

and

Don Market

would have laid

a foundation

Mr. Edwards.

riisn^r.pr\r

Mr. scarboro's

i r.rr'l=r'lrr

successor in

knowledge about

the

i\art-

i nanf

wE:l-L-

L-crr1.cfl

essentially
understand

i- .r

" LI - ,-E I I
w l

premature

contend

basic

information

lrr

qrrLricr-f

1 -h a l -

point
hra
r u

there

to

these
for

disclose

F.-l-

that

to respond

Mf.

EdWardS

of providing

iS

assistance

=cL<

Far

k?it-h

documents and informaEion
complains

knowledge

m^t- t- ar

Tn

i-hi

c

lhat

of

afl

rocr:rd

at the hearing of August 1-4, 2OL5,

a^w n u:a nN d
! yal i r a

"without

l-l-,rf

fha

ini-arrnarl-nrrr
Yd,L\J!J

the aid of factual

about what we're

l-ookins for

try

get

to

instead

the other side a spoIiat.or."

of Aug. l-4, 2QI5, Doc. No. 683, at

120.)

i<:

discovery

what are the documents that

may be gaps on and to

casEing stones and calling
Tr.

motion

but then Whitesell

more specifically

sides

a different

not. have parEicufarized

Husqvarna's counsel's
-LD

on

EHP's failure

the role

to produce

efforts

does

into

Sean Scarboro

l-ha

aanaral

Eo the litigation,

witness

^ra:q

a few questions

counsel.

ihiarr^d.t-^r1'

rel-evant

nirror

e4!s+sr

to Market and outside
'fl-ra

to

documents and information

refevant

nqa r f
y _

,

Of

aS

Mr. Market would have t.estif ied Ehat Mr.

Surely,

Edwards gathered

Somewhat

had EHP failed

that

for

sancti-ons from Wtritesel-l-, one for

-n

.flrpstion

Mr. Edwards's name in response,

provide

issues

rri a\,rq

r-.\rrrf

f he

This

is

to

both
some

of iust
(Hrg.
not to

say

and correct

considered
f =tl

Fr-rD, c
v

opening

r aLe hv.r\r nv< a
Uy
v

comes

it.s

information,

That

say,

is

to

Final1y,
inf

Ir'cnr-ad

the monthfy

f^at

discovery

and failings

in

that

there

almost

The Court caut.ions the parties
critical
di

to

<anrre,r.rr

sl i.rhr. q

a

ah.l

or

r -h : 1 -

aml-\a

r

tA1

<l

and

the court
of its

inquiry.

here.

on

matter

nOW a

this

mFcheni

qn

in

is

nlrr-e

the perceived

immediately

as they

gaps
arise.

i.rhf

ShOUld

hearings

are

and measured progression

the heari-nqs for

ORDER ENTERED at
q6^i

r -h a

and
only

bad faith

of

Lhat the discovery

efficient

crrFra

nreirrdiceS

at

attention

fair,

"

to Lhe best

to address

hearings,

discovery

iS

have

documents

a reasonable

decision

In
The

has

Edwards

Lo respond
after

l. rz

poficies,

produce

no evidence

Court's

the

L\\' fhF

is

r'l ari

upon due consideration,

and belief

there

Mr.

to

EHP failed

knowledge,

No. 58.

individual-s

retention

that

provide

to

l:r-ks.

listed

efforts

Nevertheless/

cannoE concl-ude that

1-.)r\/

the

"document

EHP's

about

information.

i nf crr.r.r:

that

obligation

an

to Interrogatory

qual-ification

the

information

l-ha

states

regarding

have

responses
f .\

r

sentence

knowledge
then

do not

Defendants

that

of

acr-

be

af

naraairrad

bfou.rhf
v+ve:rrre

expedited

Augusta,

f .r

inirrcl-

l -h F

iaa<

r-^rrrf , q

resolution.

Georgia,

t.his

/o$uv

or

R

STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
RN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
77