Lollytogs, Ltd. v. Meadow Oaks Education Foundation

Background

The court considered the parties’ cross-motions to compel discovery, along with their joint request to extend discovery deadlines. The court extended the fact-discovery deadline to August 22, 2025, but limited that extension to depositions and, if later ordered, additional document production. The other deadlines in the case-management plan remained unchanged.

Electronic-Discovery Dispute

Defendants represented that no internal emails or electronic communications concerning the school-uniform order existed. Plaintiff argued that this was implausible and sought an order requiring Defendants to use counsel or an outside electronic-discovery vendor to collect, review, and produce responsive emails. Plaintiff clarified that it was not seeking a complete forensic copy of Defendants’ email servers.

The court explained that forensic examination of computers and phones is an intrusive discovery measure generally requiring a reason to believe that relevant materials were hidden, altered, or otherwise affected by improper conduct. It also noted that the producing party ordinarily is in the best position to choose appropriate methods for preserving and producing its electronically stored information, but cannot use an inadequate self-collection process.

The court found that the record was too limited to evaluate whether Defendants had met their discovery obligations. Defendants stated that Ms. Nixon had searched email and other repositories under their direction and that their law firm reviewed documents for relevance and privilege. But they did not identify the search terms, the people whose email accounts were searched, or the method used to decide which documents were responsive. It was also unclear whether all search-result documents were sent to counsel for review or whether Ms. Nixon made the primary responsiveness decisions. The court ordered Defendants to file, by July 28, 2025, a letter describing the specific search method and providing that missing information.

Other Discovery Rulings

Defendants argued that Plaintiff had waived Ms. Bailey’s deposition because it had not been scheduled by July 8, 2025. Defendants represented that they had told Plaintiff’s counsel on June 13, 2025, that they sought the deposition. The court held that the lack of a scheduled deposition by July 8 did not constitute waiver.

Defendants also sought Plaintiff’s emails in native “.pst” format. Plaintiff stated that its electronic-discovery vendor had produced the emails in a fully searchable format with metadata preserved, allowing privilege review and Bates numbering. Because Defendants did not explain why they needed the emails in “.pst” format and had not specified a format in their discovery request, the court found that the emails had been produced in a reasonably usable form and denied the motion to compel.

Finally, Defendants sought an answer to Interrogatory Number 4, which asked for the identities of the people responsible for calculating Ms. Bailey’s compensation. Defendants said those people might confirm whether Ms. Bailey received a sales commission. The court denied the motion to compel because Defendants had not explained why they could not ask Ms. Bailey directly about her compensation and any commission from the transaction.

Disposition

The court extended fact discovery for the stated limited purposes, ordered Defendants to provide the search-methodology information by July 28, 2025, held that Ms. Bailey’s deposition had not been waived, and denied the request for emails in native “.pst” format and the request to compel a response to Interrogatory Number 4. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 32.