If you’re trying to get the court to compel production of data from your opponent, it is important to be specific about which requests they have failed to comply with, and why the requested information is relevant and proportional.
In this case the defendant, GEO Group, tried to compel the plaintiff, the state of Washington, to produce data from numerous state agencies that, allegedly, was “extremely relevant” to the plaintiff’s defense.
The state argued that it turned over thousands of responsive documents and that GEO’s motion failed to identify any particular requires to which the state failed to respond. The defendant’s motion to compel also asked for complete metadata (including custodian/author data, dates of creation and modification, etc.) and additional data included in the plaintiff privilege log, but the state responded that it had turned over available metadata and an updated privilege log.
Download the PDF version of Washington v. GEO Group case law alert here.
Some judges may decline to “wade into the weeds” of discovery compliance disputes where they conclude that a moving party has not met its burden of showing specific inadequacies and that missing information is likely to be both relevant and proportional, considering all of the F.R.C.P. 26(b)(1) proportionality factors.