Concord General Mutual Insurance Company, As Subrogee of Seth Peters, Sherry Smythe-Green and Wayne Green

Filing 11

ORDER approving 9 Discovery Plan. Length of Trial 4-6 days. Case Track: Complex. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE CANCELLED. Parties to meet and confer and file a supplement, on or before 4/17/12, to the discovery So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty. Summary Judgment Motions due by 5/1/2013. Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline 6/15/2012. Mediation Follow Up on 7/1/2013.(mm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Concord General Mutual
Insurance Company
v.

Civil No. 11-cv-572-PB

World Marketing of America, Inc.

NOTICE OF RULING
Re:

Document No. 9, Proposed Discovery Plan

The parties’ proposed discovery plan (doc. no. 9) is approved.
However, the court orders the parties to file a supplement to
the plan for the reasons explained below.
The parties’ statement regarding electronic discovery is
inadequate. Rule 26(f)(C) requires that a plan “must” include
the parties’ views on electronic discovery “including the form
or forms in which it should be produced . . . .” The parties’
proposed discovery plan includes nothing about any agreement(s)
with respect to electronic discovery, stating instead that the
parties “agree to discuss procedures for disclosure . . . should
the need arise . . . .” The parties agree that this case is
complex and requires an eighteen (18) month trial track. That
concession coupled with the reality of the modern digital age
leads the court to conclude that the parties must do more than
promise to discuss electronic discovery issues in the future.
Accordingly, the parties are ordered to meet and confer and
file, on or before April 17, 2012, a joint motion to supplement
the discovery plan that outlines more specifically their
plans/agreements with respect to electronic discovery. The
court refers the parties to the following outline of potential
issues to discuss:
1. Preservation. Counsel should attempt to agree on steps
the parties will take to segregate and preserve ESI in
order to avoid accusations of spoliation.

2. E-mail Information. Counsel should attempt to agree on
the scope of e-mail discovery and e-mail search
protocol.
3. Back-up and Archival Data. Counsel should attempt to
agree on whether responsive back-up and archival data
exists, the extent to which back-up and archival data is
reasonably accessible, and who will bear the cost of
obtaining such data.
4. Format and Media. Counsel should attempt to agree on the
format and media to be used in the production of ESI,
and whether production of some or all ESI in paper form
is agreeable in lieu of production in electronic format.
5. Reasonably Accessible Information and Costs. Counsel
should attempt to determine if any responsive ESI is not
reasonably accessible, i.e., is accessible only by
incurring undue burdens or costs.
In light of the court's approval of the parties' proposed
discovery plan subject to the aforementioned modification, the
pretrial conference currently scheduled to occur on March 29,
2012, is cancelled.
Trial in this case is scheduled for the two-week trial period
beginning September 4, 2013.

__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States Magistrate Judge
Date: March 27, 2012
cc: Phillip S. Bixby
Marie Cheung-Truslow
Mark V. Franco, Esq.

2