Ultimately, the Court determined that the defendant had other avenues to explore the scope of the plaintiff’s disclosure, and an order for further production would be premature. The Rules, themselves, do not require disclosure of the search parameters but there are other mechanisms, such as writing to the opposing counsel, sending an interrogatory, or questioning at the discovery. The Court agreed with the plaintiff in this regard but added that the defendant was entitled to know the search parameters used to determine whether they wish to challenge the disclosure. The plaintiff referred to the Sedona Canada Commentary on Proportionality in Electronic Disclosure & Discovery, and case law, noting that a request for further production must be reasonably specific and targeted, with the onus on the requesting party to prove that the specific documents that were not disclosed actually exist. The defendant argued that the parties were obliged to make a good faith effort to use the same search criteria, while the plaintiff argued that they fulfilled their obligations under the Rules. The defendants disclosed almost 70,000 documents, while the plaintiffs disclosed less than 3000 and would not disclose the search criteria they used to compile the documents. Civil Procedure Rule 16.09(3) requires each party to deliver an affidavit disclosing relevant electronic information. The defendants brought a motion to compel further disclosure of electronic information by the plaintiffs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |