As many people know, it’s imperative when making or defending against a proportionality claim to have evidence on why such a claim is valid or invalid. In this case, the party trying to make a proportionality claim offered no proof of why it was disproportionate.
In this copyright infringement case, the defendant motioned to compel production from plaintiff for information pertaining to prior copyright assertions, the alleged infringement, etc.
Leading up to this motion, the defendant tried multiple times to negotiate and resolve these production issues, including…
The plaintiff contended that the requests were “vague, ambiguous, irrelevant to any claim or defense, overbroad, not proportionate to the needs of the case, and overly burdensome.” Additionally, the plaintiff argued that some of the defendant’s requests were privileged.
Almost four months after the initial production request was served to the plaintiff, the defendant filed a motion to compel production.
Download the PDF version of Oppenheimer v. Episcopal Communicators, Inc. case law alert here.
When trying to identify proportional e-discovery parameters, it behooves both sides to cooperate and work together. When one side is uncooperative, readers should emulate what the defendant did in this case. Propose alternative measures, try and negotiate and ultimately if your efforts fall on death ears, bring in the court to help resolve the issue.