Louis Dreyfus Company Grains Merchandising LLC v. Syngenta AG et al

Filing 91

ORDER granting 75 motion to compel production of documents. Plaintiff is directed to run Syngenta's proposed search terms for the document requests that remain in dispute and to produce all responsive, non-privileged documents by September 6, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 8/16/2018. (amh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

IN RE SYNGENTA AG MIR 162 CORN
LITIGATION

No: 2:16-cv-02788-JWL

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
Louis Dreyfus Company Grains
Merchandising LLC v. Syngenta AG, et al.
No. 2:16-cv-02788-JWL-JPO

ORDER
The parties have reached an impasse on the search terms that Louis Dreyfus
Company Grains Merchandising LLC (“LDC”) will run to identify documents responsive
to certain document requests contained in Syngenta’s First Set of Requests for Production
of Documents.1 Syngenta has filed a motion asking the court to compel LDC to “review
and produce all responsive, non-privileged documents that hit on Syngenta’s proposed
search terms” (ECF No. 75). LDC responds that the proposed search terms are overbroad.
Because LDC has offered no support for its overbreadth argument, the motion to compel
is granted.

1

LDC does not object to the document requests themselves, only to the search
parameters suggested by Syngenta for identifying documents responsive to those requests.
See ECF No. 75 at 7 n.9.
1
O:\ORDERS\16-2788-JWL-75.docx

LDC objects to Syngenta’s proposed search terms on the basis that running them
results in the identification of more than 525,000 documents. LDC argues this result
indicates the terms are “overbroad” because Syngenta has only produced 330,000
documents.2 LDC states it already has produced more than 90,000 documents,3 and if it
must produce hundreds of thousands more after reviewing the 525,000 additional
documents, there would be a “demonstrable lack of mutuality” when compared to the
number of documents Syngenta produced.4
LDC might be right in predicting LDC would end up producing more documents
than Syngenta (of course, this outcome is unclear, as the number of documents identified
by the search terms will certainly not correspond to the number of documents produced

2

Most of these documents were produced in the MDL litigation, with an additional
268 LDC-specific documents produced in this individual case.
The declaration of Victoria Parker offered in support of LDC’s response states,
“LDC has produced to Syngenta 86,740 documents in the present litigation. Additionally,
LDC had previously produced 6,114 documents in the coordinated [MDL] action.” ECF
No. 79-1 at 2. In a subsequently filed motion, LDC stated that it planned to produce an
additional 23,000 documents on August 3, 2018. ECF No. 84 at 2.
3

ECF No. 79 at 2. LDC also briefly states that Syngenta’s proposed search terms
“would lead to an unduly burdensome number of documents,” id., but LDC does not
develop this argument, nor support it with an affidavit or other evidentiary proof of the
time or expense involved in responding to the discovery request. Thus, to the extent LDC
objects on this ground, the objection is overruled. See Waddell & Reed Fin., Inc. v.
Torchmark Corp., 222 F.R.D. 450, 454 (D. Kan. 2004) (citing Sonnino v. Univ. of Kan.
Hosp. Auth., 220 F.R.D. 633, 653 (D. Kan. 2004)) (objecting party cannot sustain burden
with boilerplate claims that requested discovery is burdensome); McCoy v. Whirlpool
Corp., 214 F.R.D. 642, 646 (D. Kan. 2003) (overruling objection of undue burden based
in part on lack of affidavit or other proof).
4

2
O:\ORDERS\16-2788-JWL-75.docx

after a privilege and relevance review), but such an outcome does not establish that the
proposed search terms are overbroad.

The number of hits returned when running

Syngenta’s proposed search terms says nothing about the effectiveness of the terms
themselves in identifying relevant and responsive documents. The number alone does not
provide information about any false positive results. LDC has not, for example, reviewed
a sample of the results to determine the percentage of documents returned that are not
relevant or responsive to the corresponding request for production of documents.5 The
court has reviewed Syngenta’s proposed search terms and does not find them overbroad on
their face. Given the complex issues, LDC’s resources, and the amount of controversy at
issue in this action,6 the court does not conclude on the record presented that the discovery
Syngenta seeks is disproportional to the needs of the case.7
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Syngenta’s motion to compel is granted. LDC
is directed to run Syngenta’s proposed search terms for the document requests that remain

5

LDC gives an example in which a proposed search term returned 115,000
documents and states this search “would doubtless return numerous irrelevant and
unresponsive documents,” ECF No. 79 at 4 (emphasis added), but LDC does not indicate
it actually reviewed the documents for relevance and responsiveness. Thus, LDC’s
argument is based on speculation.
6

LDC does not dispute it is seeking tens of millions of dollars from Syngenta.

7

See Fed. R. Evid. 26(b)(1) (defining the permissible scope of discovery).
3

O:\ORDERS\16-2788-JWL-75.docx

in dispute and to produce all responsive, non-privileged documents by September 6,
2018.8
Dated August 16, 2018, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ James P. O=Hara
James P. O=Hara
U.S. Magistrate Judge

The court’s August 7, 2018 order set this deadline. ECF No. 89 (“ORDER granting
motion for extension of the document-production deadline until three weeks after the
court’s ruling on Syngenta’s pending motion to compel.”).
4
8

O:\ORDERS\16-2788-JWL-75.docx