United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division
District Judge Clark Waddoups
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
M. WARNER, Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Judge Clark Waddoups referred this case to Chief Magistrate
Judge Paul M. Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A). Before the court is Entrata, Inc.'s
(“Plaintiff”) short form motion for entry of an
order governing discovery of electronically stored
informationand Yardi Systems, Inc.'s
(“Defendant”) short form discovery motion to
determine electronically stored information
protocol. 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).
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 below.
Plaintiff's Proposed Paragraph 4.
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
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).
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.
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).
court concludes that Plaintiff's proposed additional
language concerning production of documents in native format
is appropriate because, again, it serves ...