Electrolux Home Prod v. Whitesell Corp, No. 1:2003cv00050 - Document 612 (S.D. Ga. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part 606 Motion to Compel. The parties are directed to file a list (preferably a joint list) regarding this order within 7 days of January 30, 2015. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 12/29/14. (cmr)

Download PDF

Electrolux Home Prod v. Whitesell Corp Doc. 612 OR IGINAL i'ii.:t.) u . t .i i l S T i i i f al r J u i i.,- .l|'irDI_". IN THE TNITED STATESDISTRICT coIrRT FoR THE?ii,DLi2g pil ?: SOUIHERN DTSTRTCT Ol' GEORGTA AUGUSTA DIVISION :;l.inI ;0 it sT0F;A WHITESELL CORPORATION, r-ldrrtLrrl, * a\z 1n?-nqn HOME PRODUCT S, EIECTRO],UX A INC. , HUSQVARNA,.B., ANd OUTDOOR PRODUCTS, HUSQVARNA INC., Defendants, ORDER ^ ,h v r q Fu^ hurq, rr l: r u ! v! ?vn J , ? - t T Jt r a n vnl fa n o dr v v ! v Ur dicnnrrarrr f, v 4l ! v r I! n w A nr r r n it Y ^n Through arduous negoLiarions hahaer rn.{ ^\zarei^ht .-'lf fha entered upon the record r iD a r - v!vuurr n ie-.'\ra r\./ p l j: n r r q ! ,nl? Nlr\ /hFrcinAf before Court the l-.1 L ' J L / v ! l J I J i-hair di is qf I nnrr-nondin.r a\/ ,J.\inj- and at the pl:n T)iq..-r\/cr\/ r.rAq case co govern the discouery this \ ^ .aqa r - li q r - n r r c r r r nf between the parties, Af nrcqcnt Rcrri qarj a nn Annr-\'od <rnrrcrrr L Defendants' wril-tan l-hiq i r/a f ar \IlU4v+ nn-nninn enq C.irrrr of 4qn a:rf in / n.\/- .liqr.arrorrz FJcramhar " l\Tn joinr .l/ri ni- qdq motion r.afirraqf q \ Draaanl-l to \7 compe] pl^inf iff 1 T h e d e a d - li n e s o f Staqes Two through Four of the .IDP h:-re heen FXrencle.l hv Lwo monLhs. (See Order of JuLy 8, 241,4, Doc. No. 596. ) Dockets.Justia.co -l Tdr^ l-acel i CnrnnrAr r':rsr STaoe ^^nt-6mn1rt6e l-h:l- f)i qco\re.-v of - parties the an^al,,r.la ^ nr vr urLr-ts 's i rnrl idenr L, iFicacion nnmnlal-ae ! v r t l y 4 v r "h ^ v v v in The Second S[age of Discovery, in .41 LwLl A .o'nnl cEion l.] Parcs of written al-I of the discovery, rFhi r-'l r"fru Th^ ql- :da JLogs nrF \ r was to n.i . / fD n n r V a r r rt c UUz cry r 'rr:lrrcJp disr-orrerv ro fact is presently wriLLen discovery, and any additional deposjtions n:rl-i woufd conduct C u -.m ! ea ^Ll c a L Ll v \€6L- fhe l-ha l-he Suit - by February I,2O1 4. which ra<naruloul !vvI/vrrses/ Backqround Procedural ]nD hr< a rep1y. Defendants have f i]ed rlha ("Whiteseff") i On seL Lo conclude on February 28, 2415. alna m.,nl-h 1, AugJSc i r - r! r vr - r n r a c r a n ! t a 9 iq nhioct-inn iF nn l.l Alrn rq- fn f imolrr 1 . csr i 'ra- i nn - Defendants' a. r a !rU Yt UrL JaLt J di (Defs.' thc c l- ^ <-.\tar\/ Mot. n^rcies af ter to the nrim:ri n:-- ^- be.Iated production belied hol was , -^ fh:r ^l-a.ll\r ?f J1 -r^ ohr r l ro he In Whitesel-f 's Sf ena the I _..1^^.,] , y Jru ,r 1 51-a.ra Firsr in joint :rnrrincr hr..l Compel, Ex. C.) remained t lrr nafan.]^ni-q ,u, J u .Y A e: I! cl- :.IF W h jc e s e l f Trlhr +^^^t hr^..1,r/-a ^' ' u nrru { qa/^.'n.l rha to sent hanr[<a nrrru^h:ca wel-I . ' JF ra.rroqrq raqnnnd o m o utr:- L a l u-L.r 2lt1 4 . ,.-.\mnlai-i.\n Defendants rnrl rhaeo qrrnnl JuPI/f compfete.2 '? ac n^f nvnrri -uev "t nor Plvv .1 i hF 2414, Lv vv]LlL+vrrv+9!vwv!.1 nrinr'1 ona notion l'ranarcp that the Whitesell was particularly concerned that the informaLion came from a previously unidentified sysrem caI-Led "Avantis. " parries I^]hi i6cal I identified had completely .l^r r j'hrf cqrYr Yav n a c l - aed v v J e Laf^ra huv4 ' n t r : r r i rn 9 u f r vcvn n r!r a r r r v . li vu ! qI|nnlaman'^l ucfgnd6nlg was nf rha rr counted against :r^-ma.- rA^rra<t< <arrzo.l that ir c:eo count toward the numerical 4 ractics ,,r i, lTd s f e^v. r1 p uL Turo I ) of Sent j-haj- j-ho maio].ifv di F. ) ^,1 raall of cnln<a..i At fn the nrnrri jt believed rio r could \ / l-ha sent inl- arrnnal- to -^r^^-l hrr to rule i-^ an email nrioc the r rP w n l u h^ r .and number I ir lL r r r h 'i_ - L ^ f. , | r L nafandrnrc The Court wifl nri^r fetter naurl rr & Ex. qcrrred than a fhe fh6 Whiteseff ariaq totaf. < -ts d(- +L\6 f urther l-hi 3-4 objected a ^ u E ^ ^ur trr^l v cv^6 E i ntFrr.i._tai ^n\/ 1 -/ - \ \.?h'.'l^ i-- nnmhar also rc ih^l- in 2414, hrr Whitesell ^r riln f a rrr ^ ^ r !r u 9 iqa- c -LL u t l^r < 25, to t^]hil-aaal /Tr \ lll_:_ !r raJcvn a n L r . urr i idonrifrrinn nrr ar nall rF.r'rFq-q September -.\rrl-anrJin^ i n nar^r Defendants. n,'rqi t j.rn illefevant (Id. nhnnc d isr-nrzerv i rvrL -l l a 3 of and in the rcfarri insubstant.ia.L. flafand:nre f ha rearl|eqTq Some -+a caLl took c On ,'l:q.^\/er\/ j-hFj- teleconference n-oclU.rlion nnrnl,r<inn c,lhcl-a^f i r-\ ^n^Irrza a moLion Eo compel, DefendanLs agreed to rti nf (Id.) Suit. in a te.Ieconference on September L8, 20L4.4 thic l -h a r a l - . \ lrst f ima in (Id. ) Rn1-hdrrrino as Parts -h^v^^rr discuss the matter data rren |-.1 an\/ o. rr Ju rr e Yru v a a lu Rather rhan file t-hair ni i -vn .hrP n rl a i nra . l a r rL u - ' l vYlltLE:Jc-! Discovery. t n-in- l.re -cennnrl f n rrL.r!-^a- ncl(r-LL-LUrtcllly/ it the not in to tho of l1 J , q ?OAA countenance tL lr -ua ui L r l / g t ^l ^v\Lr! y . r r I L J v Eahrl,:rr' tnl ? r^,i l l nnt ]imitation. The tlminq of that call and any perceived defay on any party' s paft is of no moment ro rhis Court. now. ra^r'aqj- j- .\ c nr..r'1 1-F (Id., responding. "5 t.1 r srPv,rJvJ /^n .a q \vrr .ll to the nl rvn r r iv y tv! ^r ir haA .lrr- ,: stated haar f.\r n6f th:r it that ' _ il n r r a c .\f rocnnnr'led l, e rrn.rn r",:q imnl rh:r hrr 1T,-l \ ) +-:4:/ whi fha l l^lirh r-h Ii r rFena.-i- numer.ical supplemental r ^ r hi r - h i | .-rrl.l lists, data racaon.l r,au,l r.' rli e,^1 ,.cad .l:ra.l :nnrarah f a t.r e-maiL, e,,hnlanFnt:I ' ^^f ya! Fv i rr r r' u^ ,rra ! - 1 r / L u The list I r r r a- ^ e a l i by November 1, 201,4. thai l L nafan.l:nt e iisced $rhitaeal I hJ r r v racnnnri r l.\ hrrt l-ha rha (Id.) aopeared as folfows: Interrogatories2 53-56 f^r \ :ffantori Ir! requests tl Qin-a n.\l- rLt-+ tn nn )n1 Lo che numerically ra.flroqtq -hn a. .]ni-nhor rocnan.li I T.l respond 2O1 A T" th.\ca I ^r rrn^..onrahlF ^n r , 1 ,u-+l e L - l - fi w r r , rr u a6a,,6c-e Wh ircecl the review l-1rr lat ^r/1n/1ca.l h-rrry A- n \t -nLhU U g r ar i \ , remaining e provide its in n or \\an estimate d:io ad hoai than li qj-cd I \/ j-ho a u ee lre Yn ,vr, a v vf. i^ uraalrc ral-rrraetc F-rLr. a 'n e :ql f L u ri nn'l def rat.her objections nf ran At the time WhiteseLL senL this PvrJv/v4vrr r- q rseiJ ! E^ ,u a r L < l cl had to demanded LhaL Whiteseff e n f J rJrP Pn either identj-fied nnecaeei.\n an.l.anl- i cri And, nlrrror iaal h^ei not (Id.) nhl. talhi tAeal c i11f.\rma.ri nrnrri ir ci <r-r'rrrerrr ra.nraqf r -h a requests. the ^i r vA o u le-v , . r c r z o n G. ) would provide requests Whitesell n !r i IJ Ex. \\nranr i t- WhiCh -h\r-ra.rreqF !vYqv ^ v u rr u l] ^, ' u l -h ^ e a it that stated tO 2-3, s-LL, I4-L6, DF^.],,^-i^h. ?-? c-11 2 5 - 2 6 , 2 9 - 4 3 , A 1- 5 0 , '1-1 1 31 , 35-59, (86 13, 78-85, 86 on-Ly with respecr i nterrogatories Eo which we can respond now) ro 69- che hr^ l . r vL ^ v rmrh r t ' v^ " Jl . r,,i l-h Ex. I.) 20L4, Whitesell IA, on October ftof on^:nt- c' ral-flra<l- Whitesef] Insteadf announced that .l stated L{hi tL l ' h a v racn^n<ae ! 9 , y v f ac6l I nl arrna,-i rn d i s c o r r e r r zr e o l r e s t s w o u l d n o t b e s u b s t a n t i v e the state vrhich Whitesell manner in (Id. ) necessary. " information f^rhir6eall r,rnrrl d hanin I Wh i f eqcl h:si rolfing out of discovery In s. the ii d nrn'rir^1cc r.i nnf f h6 but woufd ".instead intends to collect the 20I41 rFcn/1 nrnrri r"le an end date f or rhe (ld.) responses. sent fetter a Defendants on October 6, 20L4, invoking .-T"lP ,.rhi nh nrnrri,,la errl^rcr:nli\ra Whj-tesell meantlme, l 1_ ]lt _ r _ \j . t Then, on November I0, nrnrridinl.' r.ll I i-rr .lrJ-ac object.ions and responses; substanlive hnuarzar could on October I1 , 20L41 that ic would provide written , roe^.inea 1t request III.E. Section to of the follows: ag acknowfedge that for The Parties certain nArfsinnlrrd:no br:r not I imi re.l ro the NonParts in Suit, Transition the Padil-fa Parts/ and rhe parEs affected by the Court's June 24, 2013 nrr]ar Pl.rinf n,rrch:co iff :nd T^h,!-r!' Jatrudry 1 f r hae ,rcrno ?nn 4 qhal I na-i-iac nrrrr-l^ec.a a)na ran:rdin.r which addirional within rlef anfl ltsacre r ^ r hi r h ir I renrrcqred ,nnq :c davs I ho cl^1--a n:rrq:nd Iime hafnra 'IL'a rrrY of crrhmif1-a.i.,r nrrrr-heqc arr .lanuary L, 200L to December 3L, 2AI3 rrqaac inn deSCribed nari in n.lq fnr sought. LEEy anra:,,laha^iand fhe nrnr],,rr- purchase and usage data is / ralhif aqal 1 ra^rr6<t- n.4c 60 inod i r'\ nari \lnrraml-rar nnF fhc riahl- timo . nrr-rrri ci nn fnr fiata r ho fnr afrar confer i.1n nf al qf^dF \ vv! ar ql- -e.ra -/-\mnla'|I /-\f nreqarrrcd rl:r: Ii<Finn d:l-e (Pf.'s fnr 1Q6 n:rtc f! th va r nea r i nt v v d u ! Resp. to Mot. to B.) Compel, Ex. withj-n 60 days August 1, :nd rho November r imo 2014, I0, perjod, Lhere exists rari,,6<l- from hlhi feeefl cU P J Ui U La t rrh a J uri 1 -f a r di cr-nrrarrr w n r t e s e _ L _ Lo n A u g u s c Ac nof Lt onrirnrc, i n r a r r . \ ^ . vaYtq.L\vr! .^'I LVLa. I t in^F^ \usrr nronrrad Nr-1- nn an 1-^ :nr'l o Dr^.jr1-t^i- / ir Tn. -h.i lrr.ri qcrrre.l r]oel they addition l^rrr flaf as soon data the q rrn.rn end:nf ra.flraqr c a^mhal F^ J r - v< r^ .-I u nr.\drr-a r. u to f .r woro rrarrr darcrmi .: ^--l-ht- tr^ l-iu - h r i rr r 6 r P c u tL' rscn6- crrl-Jet^nf is iha annrnnri:t Defendanr nlrl ^^ h:rra /{,.rno Januarv 9, 20L5. l-h i e nrndrrnt ./ lU inn eh:l Home / n6^^ml.\^- pr/-\.lrr-te d^^r -_ Ll,'l e aF EfecLrolux ,-r-t-- rh- (Pl .'s iL wou.Id do so on December 5, 2014. U i rrF currently Cvrr :Lm r_t _- 1 , v 'l j L crL as nnmnlatinn radllacr-a.t Llrrearr:rn: .1n n/-+.\l'\6'r fa1^, "-lt na/' f .\ identifjed raennn Whiteself, fho I<r \ L\ / had previously 1-hero s ro<nr"\naae represenred rhat fn time to R !o <Jn r\ Jt . lL. v, . \ M . i j - a)n i.dere rel-evant r^rri ttan !!Yuvv!e nrnrrida n r n d rsru e c u y L v cort 16f in of \ supplemental Whitese-L-L cfaimed wn,rlri According Q nrnrzi ^n.l ^nei,/ar rn: f- respond the III.E. c Whitesell instead, responses; rrnriarr:ki i^ I I i a< to the inrerrogatories heina in Defendants ra.trract l^lhi t eep Ir! Thus, fist zu 14." lt n . n m " ! v vi v c a d vJ r rJ to thaL a sent Ex and would Section chis 1f.l on data the derived responded D.) Ex. of Whiteself rcrrrrcqted c-rite-ria" the (Id., possible. how it Defendancs analyzing "currently as nariod 2AL4, 30, explaining 2014, was made 6, production Iast On October letter October of Defendants' of 2AI4. clarification request This i -h -aI avl-Fnlho nnmnl l-h:latarl thorr hj r r v fL rl r . ^ 'E -r ' t a h rr a1 l - f, , - i d D , r " lL t a ra : E ho !E r rlr/ n n r u vr n a m ,n l u vr, P anll qLLv !! /T.l \ \ l g - . : _/ rrhinh Tn -v ^ L ra.rrracj- q rvYuuJLr answer untif rnn rs h ri f r rd ^irt pfanned to v crrnnl L)/ requested on of 24, rl icanrrarrr ITA nrndrrrrinn nrnrri rtarl hrr !, ^.-i nn it< h:d \ Defendants the l L f rrlral.r-y I data could it had respond to tr^Jhitese-LIinterposed (nar-i f ir.:l IILE, a letter sent efforLs lrr contemplate rrcrrr ldhi --sel-f r ^ 7 ri - ,1 - 6 c 6 ' l I ^hl cannoL l^lhi rtr<al ^\r!rt review E i n a 1I y , ic pq from Defendants 2014, to J-odging respond nafandenl that c ro n.\mnl.ei dj scovery ne.l wou-Ld be supplemental data request was Defendants also have been made months earl-ier ?011 thaL ra.rraql-q it \w u .ur fru . l ^r l prroar^t.)ri int discovery be[ore nr.1ia-t6.1 contended that suppfemental data request was untimely III.E. the Section hoarina 24I4, and then analyzed. fulfilled should T. the Section while n i no rii <1-nrrcrr/ ra rcq - r J ynv. rnr q c s JLr r-l aimed Whiteseff's not Lhe JDP did tolled /scimhr F::. I needed to 20L4, to objeccions i r"lad to some of the requesLs. objections v l J l v v v l j r ' \ 1 . : 4 . j - , j . ' v l v l l \ . g r l thaL it nrnrr ramei November 10, requests. On October Lhei r - 6, October Lhe subsLantive Whitaqpl iare that claimed rhF additional on serve Whiteseff several f .r nro/,ln.F- receives ys! l ^_i-i\/c raqn^n<F I/!vvsvv, it !q tdhitacal ___ arra.Lyr.t ife a r L U u i. ar. A^.in in / c i/'r,1l-i^n lirrlF r.\ iCs SeCLiOn -a.Jrlact l- .\ do r ^ r ir h tI- Fnr raar'\.1n.1 because the fhe . F. :rjditional f ^ Auqust I icl- nafan,,l.ant nf data <' .ii 7, nArl-a Aq- ra.r and I T.l ,9,)4: has no r 6s d ,u,s6 e r re ! Y ct .h.l uJ r--^rr.,r ttcu t!rr u-L ^t \J! m^af r.ri I I marFl\r four Pa r rF^rri di data tna€anrlrnrc, l LUL!!r'vurrLJ, 16^,,6ef c !rYq!JLJt r.tmi uhi iva rarcnnrhl r-ta.ll nh i c (Id., nr^.'i \ r v vr! r aLmuh! a r n r. v r\ 1vfa r ] a j-^ nrcie to respond di ccnrrerrr r i ma-nanenmi .i^-a --m^ nn arrinlzlrr rc ie compef responses i.lhr f aeal I OhiF.finnS and DefendantS. \\rc motion to I RpenonsFs l- hc \ the instant Fh^ :nd nn Whitese-ll commiEred to provide lTd " to avn:ncirrp .:nf was not rr^rhari necessarv rnllinn ) O !1 t 1 Lw - .\ri Fe" fi it supplemental af :nri nni Ex. M. ) in:hl .q.rnnlpmanf:l T'rl-arr^.laf ci ra<narc lr f ha hrn:ri : Defendants fifed a-n v r rr on \ responded that informat.ion and svlrr!!ve!I undercaking. " crrl^,cr-rnr \\'i n l-\,rt ruYueJg, voluminous '/t responses to iLS SecLion lll.E. simpl-y awairing 5 qrrnnlamanr:rinn vet,t,rvrttvrr rF^rraal-e On October 30, 2074, Whitesefl A.r- rF v ' Whitese' nrnrr IJ,vv tO I r s r]v ri v e a d if J r uq DeIendanLS' reennnee h-i ef was due on November 21, 2414; however, Defendants consented to to December 5, 2014 because of the a one-week extenslon aflow T L rr d 1 .r- ^D, , i hL v L , , 9 - F^- 1 r\ i I - ^ hriof l^lhi r6e6l nh;^.f i.\-q j-.\ hr^ur ! t ui o.y . " . lr I corrrod I)cfand>rt-q. The if e d:rz nrinr \\eannnd Tnl- a-r^^:t^rr l-.r f il inn errnnlamanrr'l il- a raen.\nea pacnnncae aSi./rj I Whitesell rA e h^. submits that it substantivefy Nos. 17, 18, 34,35, fnterr:ogatory 40,49 and 50. Resp. to Mot. to Compel/ at 8.) 8 >nrl Whiteseff submits that it substantively fnterrogatory Nos. 1,-4, 9, L4-L6, 30, 37 and 34. Lo Mot. to Compel, at 9.) /1A,4 ra<n^hda..l f- (Pf.,s t^ IL Analysis have exhjb.i Ls irl-ernref al,ion ohiections ilfuminated o_f - thal . .r lr iP c L er rr r a c u un - ^ --rticular wsr-L oJ l/! raqnnnqcq f if nf e r^rhet no inf provjdes .l id sf ^.'e O^e nf e6f vLsJJ f.\rl h ?1 :n.l !LeYv q1-:^a o, n 'o e v trr cF.^6 ^f v 1/1/Al zvLq.' t, not rhrnrrnh production of ar-nnrr{inn e purchase tl.l qo-ir.n . \ - = - 1 4 - : - , \ v l n F l l q J + g t.\ f he .Tl-Jp/< rllain r-ha I data III F farme. frrsaoe i.l OerrneS usage lamnh^<i< if Whiteseff c.Laims f h.rJ- f)cfanr'l^nl/ Pl data on March 21, 201,4 .ac ual I Compel, at 4.) 2414. the Thus, detai.Led nrn-lrrco'l fhe c rne staLes: nrndrr.o.l and The JDP h', ' ' :d new information rnD unt c l-r1.ts. }-raan JrJP oerlnes commence 11/1/AR 5eCOnO, sectrOn " rne to harza JuPPrtr Eiyer- "'ill afl chnttl.l rrLr 1 - 1. A . 1 U . ) 1.)ha conclude. resnonsive C)nF !sY! 6la^-c ^ ic^^,/a.', aF Di scoverv ve- A11nlla1- in.wn qt:.rF i n L'r F a h - rurua - v/ 1 . ? O 14 j qi:dA nf that musL be addressed js aL and rrsaoe .lara ! !v- norinrl Iininrr rhe,-TflP:nd'ha would conclude on February I, it thaL n r o . l r r r : ti n n -Trr'1 r; the St. The mosL fundamenLal dispute IJr address will- The JDP A. alI the sJbstancive Po. The Court be resolved. n . , r ri rnr i FLr! n r c j - a jv- i o q e n ! regarding dispuces t ---h - e mrst i nrrnlrri di qr-nrrorrr to the motj-on to compel and attached refated The briefs /' Stage data \!tlgr\9Jt-. scope ..The clata the (arrinn 'as tne described in une \ 'nh,rc e.rrnnlamant.al Pocn or second fo. /,Tnp :ulzla.l\ nr^.lrr-ad 'c on rirl-r roqnnnci r^ M^l- ',a t-^ hr^drr^a.t Pr L/uJ\?su ^hr wr T J ur tr ]' l \ 7 ^-^ drrLr ?f v1 .d..1^/] irlqlJ*ru have been complete prj-or to that that Defendants recognizes production tl.,a of data was insubsEantial, IhD rv n L nv a! mJn !l ! : 'I r n r i nr r v + I,! and confusion some caused O !n o v! ! ! rv ! n l-.'\ qta.'ra mnrzi n.'r for uncerta.inty Avantis.tr The purpose of the JDP Lo streamfine | ^ LU -^ 9\J m.an:rrc^hl -a-^,,^a Lrrr\Ju rh anew for a fate jncfuded in -^-rl irc alJn rha lru r Q v r^ J u a firsc a< nour rrc i e iq r^rhon rhr^r:rtcd reennnc irro when that il Whitesell, tn : part di system, discovery A iq n^rtrr iq <r-nrrarrr should into fnrr-ed rc.frracl- have been run anafysis. hand/ Defendants have a duty r, hr o r r j r E wjsh co chil-L rhis nrnrlrrno qranq added part On the other fL5 a Tr^ro of a new information the introduction the production late with hla that but. the purpose of especially ^icnarn q n^rl- LJ Pu- ?v w - nO contend Defendants' afso remains that The fact cfear, qt- r.rp LUY! a r !o s 6r v! time. The Court late . ,ilrn c v u Stage one of Discovery could nor of Parts in Suit, ro Lhe fist ? 7\ r^,\n u ,g u r r - - d fio e v v r u duty by ru.Ling that nrnrlrrnri.\h .\r - 1 - \^ nar^r d.arr le:^6 d.rl-A to suppfemenr ^^.,-+ (- r^^^ -^+ lt\JL ll(JsD every time Defendants rli cnatrarrr ih tha -reA I J l v v q g ! g + g ! v q v l ] , , ,l i w I I I-! l--^ IJe -r^-iFi or9tl-L!!\-oi'L !l eL J !F l- l - i a/ - L nr dal:rrori Tn fr-t- in t-ho t0 Defendants subsequently explained to Whiteseff on two occasions thar the Avancis system was inconsequential in thaL i F -.\niAi na.l nrrrr-h:co rer^ainl- .lat a f nr r r: ra Jl v v r 24) 4 caf ar rr <rnnlz (Defs.' parts. Mot. ro Compef, Exs. F & H. ) Whitesell appears to be contenl with this explanation as menrion of the Arzanl-i q q\.rqFam iq ralarr:f cri i.\ ,a F^.fn^fa Resp. to Mot. to Compel, aL 4 n.2.) a new svstem disclosure of consternati-on. 10 in if c hriaf /pl ,q Neverthel-essr the initial woul-d cause Whitesell Court's DefendanLScould have reasonabfy concluded estimation, lace production, LhaL the case was in SLage Two and chal their which suDofement.aton wlthout i z -l J v c v un u i v a ! rrarrr in r u Y^urur Jau< F ! a v l wifl not inaction on '1 nr.^!,^r .v t' n I under discoverv ^-^n,,^- ian .rh^ ^.^verbial c1-e. q inn ' u!vuues r'r! vr'. ..1-nnlc file oart ies to FhalurrqL tL hLal \ / r r rhoroh- To rAd h . a r u a fr r url lr J l r . r ^ n ' r n vr Stage r,riI I r'c nroduCed inr infnrnal- uiil radrra<t-< l n.-\l- irrel iFr,' Av-ant- fhe :nrr r,rirh timinn nF its the the CourL late ORDERS borh n r / .v .v lq r r - v r r i o n f ee+ r a r - r r ri r a m o n r q knowledge, no further Should have are hee'r nrorlrrcad filed, in raa^6/-f roenandi t-^ t-h^t nr-r rn in any new should have been produced in dal:rz l-ha initial of IJr of their that subject seven (7) davs hereof certifications produced that information ana Once those One. enrl - r^ri-l^ -ha of Stage One, and to the best the for because within a certification the case must. be hammered inl o s1-^oe fhiq rre mere Nevertheless, accountable nail I,!vw j-ha {-l..rtq requests that served che JDP. Whitesell- hold the not findlng is '>i1 A, hu9uJL was appropriate requests Court q rhe court One when Defendants Stage was insubstantial, on the JDP's deadfines. rr effect then, To be cfear remained as characterize they di Stage cnnrrarrr n : r t i nLr4:v1 : u ! r ur }/e! in fo rmat ion . 11 Tli qrnverrz z\./ra, Indeed, deedl '-- lrr\r-lucrLrll9 Whiteseff i nes , *r-a:L Ll f n- it consented q :r^rac .fr,rn t o o Ib e _ L eEv e:d JE fi r Vc s 11 to l -t ^ r a an extension of the lh Staao One had concluded. oLcr9v Even though Defendants were the architects .]ol ueruy, :rr l^ihi ioe6l I l-.r \\^r6n:-6rl f ^ IJ!UIJU!UV nar f rce cr-arzcrrr l^\^^ in are analysis" alI. di rr:q too l-n ra<nnndi na" anrl On the Court. at ehri fhe I o The :r a F ri e woufd be a : yy! i to a n ^ r ^ ^ r u:v ! ta convinced ay^^.q ach^h lr E J y u r re a < and significant dol:r; rrndarj- nri^r :ccrrrrnaoe i Ve these jLs Of at own nofon^:nr e' short theif providing that l.\ very natule time-consuming naf Fn.l^nl- e done l-h:l- r-o-f i-rrallv lha t.\ had Whiteself ^f ,an full, r^ Y rSJ I E d rU a e iLcJ exercise. The Procedure t nacJeottarg. rz erc VAr i q i nn rk and gained thi rtrz clarrs nrovicled in the Federaf Rufes of Civif .rr-el i l-q i I ih:f DefendanLs give a-d Ls rr approval of opposing counsel or is Court I rr "/^rrrranf tru 6.6np1avi rrndrrl rcqnnnqeq sought hand, other nr Lo be deemed responsive indeterminate exLension of dj scovery without rhis I I q Talh roqel i has effecLively Whiteself i annre of the initial raerrlr verv Section III.E. is in to wore oroV j der.l ra:snne reasons .a hai.'t1 1-ho mnrinn provide timalrr .yair^d ?:rhor prin/^i f;ehinn purported ,l^t \trs f parties, The Court ^,, ay, t2 cnmncl ascertainable need supplemencal data and additional F^- in r,rhrr ii- .r) rlr.l nOL anSWeI Whiteseff's Delendanus and third -^^-^ fittle nqac i^narr^/-t:inrioc f i l i n.r wil] to ir eVen n.a'l One :mnna have the d j.scovery from now address ln ,,^wci l , .-,ri + 1 . - i ^ w -L -j-hf il- - ! +q-d L c t -^^ f LrrrdrrLr that the parties r L 'a hu L nun L L y r lua l mn L v r i F^ arritu shall i^n / ru r rhe o rrrh !a r \ vr g s -r.v 1 l r L a)ne w^s llef enclanf sf 'r'h-r- r ' li c n n r r a r r r i nrra Ehe JDP. wl^Fl I - Ivsn e ! t ! .Tnp of -arf f harr arrn-rn nrha T.iFr-.).r:f.)ri r ."in than to m:\/ -h i n,rc Fst Arr.rrrct Rarnraqt of Parts ln E. hef ,.,66. -ha f nr Dir+ l3 q+.arr4 Until tha1:' request ano ^ o lr ror y l r 9 rinn us iL r t cJ in nrndrrnl- wi f h TTT the be this SiaarF in ! r ! parties drrrinn ion tS Of Well v v Y v the Qrrno r ^ r r r- - F * j -r r p i n ennrrorr; qr^/'ra v delineace "n rri n.I .li T\^ral reserved furlher gggnhj- State: i6- :nrl E n, Dr..lnr-f ian that aj- hFr infnrm:linn r^rri l-l- an q I, , .teYevv rr,r l \/ raqi-ir- Could dac 60 days of iad nanr'ii encnifin r . li , . l r / 1 f other p^rtiac l-ha irrcrif Juourr while nrnrri Stand. qa/-l-i/1n f ^i-l- 'r'nrmaciOn r rlJiU vq v, !^ o r r e r r z r F . f l r a q - s v v l qrrda n^t was ?OO nrrtcl III. the l a m r ' n! f" L q r a l Lor E qt i-|-r,L. -a\nramnnr:nc.rrrq Moreover, rli ennrrar FhF ^r 1-,\' q6^i'On rF6rraql-q 'ln r'li <cnrzorrr Two of L,.e TTT the list narf Shall eur y y f n J rn Dafan.l.ani affected nno rr dala because the JDP contemplates ..\nl- rrri1-nan l f v r. l r data "wirhin becr.Lon thereto aei qA.-ri/1n Ro,^rrrqo nF L1!rrl-6a6l ana-Iysis of this Tr.,r in // wn]-tesel.L' s resnonses a - r lru Yru -fJrL on this .lcf i nad :c e fr F .nmnl uvrIIJ+u Whitesell r r irm L s r y\ / L L6 l hl r r rL hra : d d i t i n n v r v L / . - \ r r ' .l l fLh aL rr of information l- ^ t^ L ' a lr a w_ confer ^-i.l !url/vrruve ri^hF m:ka ql- ,a/'ra nrra .\f 'inus. time. t^ ^^11- < !.c a u E aL l - 2014, production !sr a !f\jrrLr need for f i-nds that the Court first data, III.E. Section purported Whiteseff's of consideration l -h F con-\n'l / i rn rn l r r d iv n r r I r vr v \ DOCUmentS aS tO rrY, and Third n^ -r.r ^^ +^ ,. q 1 -. ^ a / lnp ca.i- !-99:j-=f\vg!,Jg!Lf,v sees it TTT \\rolar,:nr P. 1-^ 26 lb). nh:nnac If >^.tc vrrurrY!J provides inn racnanrli T- besc of its abifity r5qn.,nqp< answers f:r-r of I -tnrrndcd information Stage" and Section Fad " III.E. tO R data DefendantS' Procedure 26(e) (1) that it Tha servlce. tihitesell party dUtv Iil-rr Lhe seek eli ecnrrarrr 1-n rcqnnnd fn rhc possession w.Luhin l-^ <,rnhl amaht irq th:- i-s ii- v e\/pntrrel erroneous to Lo discovery .ar]rrrncorl in its .ahi CourL entitl,ed or third a fIOm or is \7 haS chis upon -receipt of r :i vi ! v q ! ! 1 . v that III.E. :r..1 brouqht to present Whitese.LI's refusal ra.y,raer- Lhe Section il a.1 rrt zlaFcnec I eads ^nnr.\nri:i-al become incomplere conclusion cnnrrarrr si on wiLh information This discussion rti nrovi Whitesell nrore.rq r,,l..l i l-i nrr.l of own discovery nn ra.lrraqi-q davs nr reqnr^\rlses of the notion and have answers Lo its -r v I's f ha in the FirsL nleim Firsr Ac seek all Federaf Rufe of Civil- disabuse Whltesell thi to the in \ ..lda,'l\ production i ^ J hi l - F s F l l-^ qrrnnl anan-r- l-^ n-arl- r/'q iecl s u p p f e m e n t a t . io n o f a n s w e r s . for Tha ar lamnh:sis were free .an\/ the requests, discovery nri A i..ta'rtlf Lo the purchases idencified rnrrrca Civ. i.rn nrrr^h^eac both parties then, "relating aF l-ha e h:<arl ,rnnn if in:nnrnnri ^l-a to respond to the initiaf c,,lacirF request and its f .\ aL'ait own discovery Tha I4 leads to the Court's a.\rrri crn rac-^heAe I^ requests was anl rr hano :nr'l period; briefing n! r c !v r! s y vv u \\ral r pends, motion this dad l i nn r a Je Jnv r rl y v vn < F c l l r i,-e rlelarrinc o' r rur of ^ v LmI r La ^ " ^ r u l hrc nr<eorl t^lhi f Aeal r a\^ r v u 9q j - q LU aura p I l- ha r uJyvr ] - a < n n nr. u on ^hia.l- i /rnq -he eifLcr I hercfnfn ?0. L'7, l-.'\ whi tesell ro i nternnqed is i nn rrn lpqq wit'hout. accord nari is now over. n,.l now here the - i t motion .anri a rhci due to Court a^1 has l / s Tdhi itrspl j-n Defendants' Art . t n u Y. u friL q i / r the ORDERS Ar :r r s ^ r v e^ r , ' - \ ^,t l \ well-f y Ounded s.1rr.rhl- overbroad only itS ?n14 d'sr:ove-v rtrcruests. advanced is deemed waived, and narmi nr l- ie.l i .-)r Anr, 15 cnmnol i e herein. hrr I fn i ^n qt^iind c LJt JLqLf hrr-dpnelr.re v v ! v v r t v v r i :drrrnno raqna\nqa< / - \ l - 1 ia / ^ f substanci ve nofonrl:nr- undLtlv qar\ra. ral-r]raqj-q interposes tihiteseLl i.in l-.\ 6[ig66rrcrr/ Defendant5/ in mnl-inn provided extent i nfnrm,el- is f ha to Court Accordingly, 2 0 ' 15 - 20I4, rcorrpq- cf committed own this nFFpn.l^nl-qt tO lha hri has requesL.ll the rFsr\.nqcs October l- ha T-- fnrannina IN GRjAIiITED PART to i f s nn period. to a specific Iln.\n r-orrnsel or a await Whitesell l'rrrr itS December 31 is of l..rr ,Jer'rarrr objecEion nn to has ot herq rFqn^iqes rlrrri holiday intervening mAn\/ :fd of December l- offered deadfine alternate Tn i-q q ra.r'rFqf rn onnnqIno The deadline rhef c.\rrF ! n-ir-t- ^nnrov;- rL-v^ l-.\ Indeed, does not. Whj-tesefl hands whife on its has an obligation The Court raqn.\nqoq vr!lrrY n! r F . . qv y has not been sitting Whiteseff assume that t^ nr n;ianri '|-ha ic ane Arrdrrcln rarr r'9 1 i nn c l rr nor to the c]aims and defenses in the litigation relevant neither J & K.) Compel, Exs. rhoco nhionr moril- refusal laee i ni Defendants compel, n^ Mot. to Defs.' l-.1 ni qcna nc Mot. to Compel. at ril-6 1 - 2 - 1 8 ,) This -r- promptly. " r-,..t- I imi-od ^ is (Id., Ex. L. ) price to clearly damages cfaims WhiteseII's provided many relating information to offers iL L 'le r .u, u fi r r^ l ^^ , r 1 h v inlormation refevant "WhiteseII follows: as .rhir:^t-i provide to foffows (Defs.' objections Whitesell's nFrj-a to of discovery the dated October 24. 2014, Defendants reference In a fetter nrhar a< of requests. categories motion In their innc to (See generally or both. evidence, admissible .Iead to calculated reasonably increase discoverable it and Whitesell should as be responded as on October 30, 20L4: r !l Jrq Yc !e . r r e o s ! ! i I dl ' pe Lvr \rn uYrt ri rtrh r r jve! \\morif nFiaari r-har:r-j- ori /' Iaee :nr-l r"ro -:f .1.\ i,)n Of l.'^l n.'r OUf i ^"^ b-lanket assertion const.j-tutes a goodthis that faith conferral as contempl-ated by Local Rule 26.5. To the extenL that you have concerns about specific nv rJ - vrei Ja n l - i n n c v ! f l^6 rl'l Fq rF.rIr i rc e qneni f i.' ,liSCUSSiOn We sEand ready and willing of those concerns. have that discussion, (Id., time Ex. M.) r6 !Erzi aLr ^f the arguments of fha n,arf ies ^hia^ti^n< vpJLLLlvrrgI/!Jv!!v have nart^ininn rLhr 6 E - n n lr lrra c nva n r . l o h - a Lv JP counsel in n:da a rof l-n the motion to compel a short 20L4. on November I0, later r rP u h r u ^^r Defendants fil-ed co i-ha h61-,.,^^^ brief, the Court oood-faith nina L6 ean:rar-a afforL Fl.,^ Lits ^riPa! i ^- -F.l concfudes that reso]ve che [o a:r-onarioc nrinr tn seeking part.ies the j nvo.Lvement of the extent that r l -i o n 1t L. Accordingly' Court. are DIRECTED to meet and confer in objections raqnl Lhis an effort this a..)rrrl- to is seeks DENIED PART. IN LOnClUSl0n requests GP,N{IED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. is che parLies nortri ni q rn cr.r^a ,015 ana nr.\.aqe To the l a m c' nLf r r L u r l e. . l^lhil- ec6l i n t o r r n n . ar n r i o e ;r ie nr,,'lcrcd : n,,l rn af fz1 6 o.[ dara ,,'i r-hi e rJ rF a f I fI nr^.l,rr.6 hJ rJ, l DU f.i rha h vy , corrar SeCtion ^^ - lv^ q n have not WhiteSefl,S roennnd radrra<te As directed, Defendants r^ lL-.hso \ , , ' j -ullu!JL, nnmnl that 16c^^.ei\?a drl- I i c extent discovery Lhat produccion certifications iif..r'nFri^h all c q lr/ n fn J r y )A1A ih6 hereof. days tr file shall nn n-nrridad ITT To the inmediate Defendants' motion to compef responses to rheir (l) about issues. the compel mof :nn fha good faith in resolve motion Defendants' hv to the -T:n!!--!, uqrruo!y Alrdt,cl- Trnrr:rrr vqr,ee, ), 1 ?vO J , 20L5. Within seven (7) days of January 30, 2015t the parties ch:ll f ilo: I iqf /nrafFr,ahlr,r enumerates the discovery a ini requests - either i n w h o . L eo r i n p a r t .inaction or objection. nt I iqf that The paruies ThereafLer, r^rhi ch <nanif iar'l lrr have not been answered - whether because of Whitesell's shall submission $rhich of the nine categorjes been reso.Ived. ) sLare in this of objections the CourL wiII L1 also have not conduct a hearing the to address enfertain mnf inn subnitted ^n\/ reouest a !r n r rr nvru' v a r ' l { vu : Y in However, the parties Court's directives for an\7 Further, ]ist(s). or costs nnrrrirrr-j- fh:f are cautioned in this fees h-as that Order the Court associated r,rken nl-a.p will with fcl not this al^1_e the implementat ion of will be carefulfy scrutinized. I ar ORDER ENTERED Augusta, Ceorgia, tis Cfrn^V ot December, 2014. S T A T E SD l S T R I C T J U D G E RN D]STRfCT OF GEORGIA 18

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.