Emerson v. Iron Mountain Information Management Services, Inc.

Background

This discovery order resolved disputes over Kimberly Emerson’s document requests, or requests for production, numbered 1–7, 9–10, 12–13, 17–24, 26–27, 33–35, 37, 41–43, 46, and 48. Iron Mountain objected that the requests were, among other things, irrelevant, unclear, harassing, or too broad. The court found most of those objections to be boilerplate and unpersuasive. It also concluded that Iron Mountain had not adequately stated whether it was withholding responsive materials based on its objections, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(C).

Discovery rulings

The court ordered Iron Mountain to amend its responses to identify whether responsive documents were being withheld. The court rejected Iron Mountain’s position that Emerson had to first provide a list of custodians and search terms for electronically stored information. Instead, Iron Mountain had to select custodians likely to have responsive information, search their electronic records, produce what it found, and identify the custodians and search terms used. Emerson could request additional custodians or search terms if she specifically explained why they were likely to produce responsive information.

For requests 17 and 18, Iron Mountain had to clarify whether responsive documents were in its possession, custody, or control and produce them if they were. For request 24, the court required production of the requested sampling of documents identifying the positions or employers of seven individuals who allegedly participated in adverse actions against Emerson.

The court limited requests 10, 12, and 33 to documents from October 2016 to the present. It found request 6 overbroad and said Iron Mountain did not have to produce documents responsive to that request as written, although Emerson could reformulate it. For request 27, the court required production only of responsive calendar and similar documents authored or maintained by the seven identified employees; it did not require production of documents involving other employees. The court also found request 41 overbroad and said Iron Mountain did not have to respond to it as written, although Emerson could reformulate it.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse ordered Iron Mountain to comply and produce all nonprivileged responsive documents, unless otherwise noted, by September 24, 2021. Any documents claimed to be privileged had to be identified in a privilege log. The court denied Emerson’s request for leave to move for attorney fees and ordered each side to bear its own costs.