Dyer v. Target Corporation

Filing 11

ORDER approving with modification 8 Discovery Plan. Length of Trial 3 days. Case Track: Complex. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE CANCELLED. The parties are ordered to meet and confer and file, on or before October 1, 2012, a joint mo tion to supplement the discovery plan that outlines more specifically their plans/agreements with respect to electronic discovery. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty. Ready for Trial on 1/22/2014. Summary Judgment Motions due by 9/1/2013. Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline 12/1/2012. Discovery deadline 11/22/2013. Mediation Follow Up on 11/1/2013. Miscellaneous Deadline set for 10/1/2012.(kad)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Jennifer J. Dyer
v.

Civil No. 12-cv-297-LM

Target Corporation

NOTICE OF RULING
Re:

Document No. 8, Proposed Discovery Plan

The parties’ proposed discovery plan (doc. no. 8) 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)(3)(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 that any information exchanges
that are made involving electronically stored information shall
be made in a format that is readily accessible using standard,
non-proprietary Microsoft Windows XP compatible programs.” A
“format that is readily accessible using standard, nonproprietary Microsoft Windows XP compatible programs” is too
vague. In any event, more is required under the rule.
Accordingly, the parties are ordered to meet and confer and
file, on or before October 1, 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.
6. Privileged or Trial Preparation Materials. Counsel also
should attempt to reach agreement regarding what will
happen in the event privileged or trial preparation
materials are inadvertently disclosed. See Fed. R. Evid.
502.
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 September
12, 2012, is cancelled.
Trial in this case is scheduled for the two-week trial period
beginning January 22, 2014, and the court will attempt to begin
the case on the date of jury selection, if the calendar allows.

__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States Magistrate Judge
Date: September 10, 2012
cc: Harry M. Haytayan, Jr., Esq.
Meredith M. Lasna, Esq.
Sean J. Milano, Esq.
2