Green v. Fluor Corporation et al

Filing 28

RULING denying 26 Defts Motion to Compel Production and Inspection. Pltf is awarded reasonable expenses incurred in the amount of $200.00, to be paid by the defts within 10 days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 6/11/2009. (JDL, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

BRANDON GREEN CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NUMBER 08-176-FJP-SCR FLUOR CORPORATION, ET AL RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION Before the court is the Defendants' Motion to Compel

Production and Inspection. is opposed.1 Essentially for the

Record document number 26.

The motion

reasons

stated

in

the

plaintiff's None of sought

opposition memorandum, the defendants' motion is denied. the defendants' requests for production of documents

inspection of the plaintiff's camera phone or his email account. Defendants' offered no basis to contest the authenticity of the photograph, nor do they contend that viewing the original of it on the plaintiff's camera phone or in an email will provide them with any information which they do not already have. Defendants production of did not request any particular form for i.e. the the

electronically

stored

information,

photograph, as they could have pursuant to Rule 34(b)(1)(C), Fed.R.Civ.P. Consequently, the plaintiff had the option under Rule 34(b)(2)(E) to produce the photograph in either the form it is

1

Record document number 27.

ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form. do not argue that the form chosen by the

Defendants is not

plaintiff

reasonably usable.

While the defendants assert that the image is

of poor quality, they did not attach a copy of it to their motion so the court can independently assess the quality of it. Moreover, because under Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(iii) a party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form, the defendants have no right to view the same photograph in the plaintiff's email account. Defendants' motion was not substantially justified and no circumstances make an award of expenses incurred by the plaintiff unjust. Considering the motion and the opposition filed by the pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., the

plaintiff,

plaintiff is awarded his reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred in opposing this motion in the amount of $200.00. Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Compel Production and Inspection is denied. Plaintiff is awarded reasonable expenses

incurred in opposing the motion in the amount of $200.00, to be paid by the defendants within 10 days. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, June 11, 2009.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2