Columbus Housing Partnership Inc v. Dominion Homes Inc et al

Filing 19

Agreed ORDER regarding Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel on 6/12/12. (sh1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Columbus Housing Partnership, Inc.,
Plaintiff

:

Dominion Homes, Inc., et al.,
Defendants

Civil Action 2:12-cv-00111

:

v.

:

Judge Frost

:

Magistrate Judge Abel

:

AGREED ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY
Plaintiff Columbus Housing Partnership, Inc. and Defendants Dominion Homes,
Inc., William G. Cornely, and Matthew Callahan agree to the following guidelines and
limitations regarding discovery:
1.

ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION
A. Definition. “Electronically stored information (ESI)” includes all types of information

that can be stored electronically that are within the scope of Rule 34(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
B. Disclosure or production of ESI will be limited to data reasonably available to
the parties in the ordinary course of business.
C. ESI can be disclosed or produced in any practicable format (such as PDF or TIFF
format) unless the party seeking the disclosure or production of ESI specifically requests
that the ESI be produced in its native format. Requests for ESI to be produced in native
format will not be unreasonably denied.

D. The scope of discovery or the format of the production of ESI may be further
limited or modified by agreement by the parties.
E.

The scope of discovery or the format of the production of ESI may be further

limited or modified by order of the Court upon a showing of good cause or undue burden
or expense.
2.

PRIVILEGE LOGS
A. Privilege logs need not include documents created after the date on which this

action was commenced.
B. Unbroken chains of email communications may be regarded as one, single
document for purposes of entry on any privilege log.
3.

INADVERTENT PRODUCTION OF PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS
Pursuant to Rule 502(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, inadvertent disclosure of

a communication or information covered by the attorney-client privilege or work product
doctrine (“privileged information”) shall not constitute a waiver of the privilege or
protection in this action or in any other case or proceeding. If any party to this action
inadvertently discloses privileged information, upon becoming aware of such inadvertent
disclosure the party in receipt of such privileged information shall not share or exchange
the privileged information with any non-party, and shall promptly return the privileged
information to the producing party; provided, however, the party in receipt of the
privileged information may retain a copy of the privileged information if the party intends
to challenge the claim of privilege or protection. Absent evidence to the contrary, it is
presumed that the disclosure of privileged information was inadvertent unless the party
2

disclosing the privileged information intends to use or uses the information in support of
or in response to claims or defenses raised in this action. Further, it is presumed that, with
respect to any inadvertent disclosure of privileged information, absent evidence to the
contrary, the party producing the privileged information took reasonable steps to prevent
the disclosure and promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error.

s/Mark R. Abel
United States Magistrate Judge

3