Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 21, 2022

Darwin v. Newburgh Operations, LLC

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:22-cv-00872
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Darwin v. Newburgh Operations, Judge Liman granted in part and denied in part a discovery motion, requiring a privilege log but not nonresponsive search-hit documents.

Who this affects

Robin Darwin and the defendants, who were required to follow the court's discovery ruling and provide the required privilege-log information by September 29, 2022.

What happened

In Darwin v. Newburgh Operations, LLC, Robin Darwin asked the court to require the defendants to produce electronically stored information found by agreed search terms, even if it did not respond to the document requests, and to provide a privilege log.

The court denied the request for nonresponsive documents that merely contained the search terms. It explained that the search terms helped identify documents to review, but the defendants only had to produce documents requested through a proper discovery request. The court granted the request for a privilege log and required the information listed in the applicable local rule to be provided by September 29, 2022.

Judge Lewis J. Liman issued the order on September 21, 2022. The motion was granted in part and denied in part.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Darwin v. Newburgh Operations, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-00872
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Sept. 21, 2022

Background

Robin Darwin moved for an order requiring Newburgh Operations, LLC, doing business as Sapphire Nursing at Meadow Hill, and Tzvi Barax to produce electronically stored information (ESI) that matched agreed search terms but was not responsive to Darwin's document requests. Darwin also requested a privilege log, which identifies documents withheld because of attorney-client privilege or another asserted protection.

Rulings

The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. It denied Darwin's request to compel production of ESI that was nonresponsive to the document requests merely because it matched the search terms. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, the defendants were required to produce only documents sought by a proper document request. The court explained that the search terms identified the universe of documents from which responsive materials would be found; they did not require production of every document containing those terms.

The court granted the request for a privilege log. It held that Local Civil Rule 26.2(b) required a party asserting privilege to provide a privilege log within 30 days of a document request, unless the parties agreed to a different date or the court set one. The court stated that its July 13, 2022 order did not eliminate that requirement. The parties were directed to follow Local Civil Rule 26.2, and the required information had to be provided by September 29, 2022. They were also encouraged to follow Local Civil Rule 26.2(c).

Disposition

Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered that the motion was granted in part and denied in part: the request for nonresponsive search-hit ESI was denied, and the request for a privilege log was granted.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.