COVETRUS INC et al v. ACTIAN CORPORATION, No. 2:2021cv00097 - Document 103 (D. Me. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN H. RICH III. (mmy)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
COVETRUS INC et al v. ACTIAN CORPORATION Doc. 103 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE COVETRUS, INC., et al. , Plaintiffs v. ACTIAN CORPORATION, Defendant ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 2:21-cv-00097-LEW MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE Following a discovery conference on January 19, 2022, I ordered the parties to submit letter briefs regarding the defendant’s request to physically inspect certain computers and servers belonging to the plaintiffs. See ECF Nos. 80, 87. Specifically, I ordered them “to address in their briefs (1) the benefit of a physical inspection of the computers and servers over the inspection of forensic images of those devices that is apparently not opposed by the plaintiffs; (2) the burden to the plaintiffs of a physical inspection, and (3) any relevant caselaw.” ECF No. 87. Having now reviewed the parties’ briefs (ECF Nos. 95, 96, 99, 100) and the authorities cited therein, I accept that a physical inspection may provide some additional benefit to the defendant but conclude that the benefit is outweighed by the burden such a physical inspection would impose on the plaintiffs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The plaintiffs have agreed to produce forensic images of the devices that the defendant seeks to inspect as well as the technical specifications of those devices; they are hereby ORDERED to do so by March 7, 2022. I anticipate that the production will be made pursuant to the existing confidentiality order (ECF No. 43) and that, if there are any details that still need to be worked out regarding the exact procedure of the production, the parties will be able to handle such arrangements on their own. Finally, if the 1 Dockets.Justia.com defendant’s inspection of the forensic images reveals that they are not as thorough and complete as the plaintiffs have represented, the defendant may, of course, seek further assistance from the court. NOTICE In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may serve and file an objection to this order within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to review by the district court and to any further appeal of this order. Dated this 21st day of February, 2022. /s/ John H. Rich III John H. Rich III United States Magistrate Judge 2
]]>
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.
