This wedding-gone-bad showcases that even though you might not trust your opponent, you need proof to call into question your opponent’s discovery processes. Without that proof, the court will reject your request for additional discovery actions.
In this couples’ dispute over a botched wedding and who pays the costs of it, the plaintiffs motion to compel additional discovery over defendants’ emails and text messages.
The dispute between the soon-to-be bride’s family and groom’s family arose around whether the wedding would be “adults only.” As tempers flared, the wedding was called off and the plaintiffs (the bride’s family) was out over $100,000. Subsequently, the plaintiffs sued the defendants over these wedding costs.
Within discovery, the defendants produced 5,000 text messages based on multiple requests for text messages from the plaintiffs. Unsatisfied with the information produced, the plaintiffs wanted to serve multiple interrogatories and depose the defendants’ vendor around the process and searches taken to find relevant text messages.
Download the PDF version of Gross v. Chapman. case law alert here., Inc. case law alert here.
The Court wisely referenced Sedona Principle 6, and cautioned that “there must be more” and “I want more and all” generally is not a basis for, in the Court’s words, “going down the rabbit hole of discovery on discovery.” The Court also reminded the parties that discovery is limited by proportionality principles, and defendants’ production was more than proportional when considered under common sense.