Property Solutions International v. Yardi Systems
MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 105 Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery; denying 106 Defendant's Motion for Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 9/20/17. (jlw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
ENTRATA, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00102-CW-PMW
YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., a California
District Judge Clark Waddoups
Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
District Judge Clark Waddoups referred this case to Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M.
Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 1 Before the court is Entrata, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”)
short form motion for entry of an order governing discovery of electronically stored information 2
and Yardi Systems, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) short form discovery motion to determine electronically
stored information protocol. 3 The court has carefully reviewed the written memoranda submitted
by the parties. Pursuant to civil rule 7-1(f) of the Rules of Practice for the United States District
Court for the District of Utah, the court has concluded that oral argument is not necessary and
will determine the motions on the basis of the written memoranda. See DUCivR 7-1(f).
See docket no. 30.
See docket no. 105.
See docket no. 106.
The two motions before the court center on the entry of an order to govern discovery of
electronically stored information (“ESI”) in this case. Plaintiff seeks entry of its proposed ESI
order, while Defendant seeks entry of its proposed ESI order. The parties’ main points of
disagreement can be divided into four separate categories, which the court will address in turn
Plaintiff’s Proposed Paragraph 4.
The court is unpersuaded by Defendant’s arguments that this paragraph is redundant to
Paragraph 8 and creates ambiguity concerning whether the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or
Paragraph 4 govern discovery in this case. The court does not view the paragraph as redundant.
As noted by Plaintiff, it will help to ensure that the parties will not use the ESI order to avoid
their discovery obligations. As for Defendant’s second argument, it is clear that the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure always govern discovery in any case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (providing
that the “rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States
district courts”). The language of Paragraph 4 does nothing to alter that principle.
Computing Resources to Be Searched; Personal Devices and Accounts.
Defendant’s arguments concerning the computing resources to be searched focus on
Plaintiff’s alleged actions in another case pending between the parties in the Central District of
California. Those arguments are inapposite to this case. This court will focus on the parties’
actions in this action, not any allegations about what may or may not have occurred in a separate
case. Even putting that aside, the court is not persuaded that the expansive scope of searches
required by Defendant’s proposed ESI order is appropriate under the proportionality limitations
of Rule 26. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), (b)(2)(B).
With respect to the parties’ arguments on the issue of searching Plaintiff’s employees’
personal devices and accounts, the court is persuaded that the process outlined in Plaintiffs’
proposed ESI order for accessing Plaintiff’s employees’ personal accounts and devices is
appropriate. Furthermore, as Defendant admits, it can seek that information directly from
Plaintiff’s employees through other discovery means.
Duplication and Proportionality; Cumulative ESI and Burden of Search;
Searching Subsidiary or Affiliate Companies.
On these issues, Defendant again presents arguments about Plaintiff’s alleged conduct in
the related case referenced above. As previously noted, the court is unpersuaded by those
arguments. As for the parties’ proposed language on these issues, the court concludes that
Plaintiff’s proposed language best serves the scope of and proportionality limitations on
discovery outlined in Rule 26. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
The court concludes that Plaintiff’s proposed additional language concerning production
of documents in native format is appropriate because, again, it serves the proportionality
requirement of Rule 26. See id.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The court concludes that all of Defendant’s arguments concerning the ESI order to be
entered in this case are without merit. Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s
short form motion for entry of an order governing discovery of electronically stored information 4
is GRANTED, and Defendant’s short form discovery motion to determine electronically stored
information protocol 5 is DENIED. After entry of this order, the court will enter Plaintiff’s
proposed ESI order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 20th day of September, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
PAUL M. WARNER
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
See docket no. 105.
See docket no. 106.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?