Your Name*:
Your Email*:
Recipients Name*:
Recipients Email*:
Comments:
CC Yourself:
You are not signed in and can only download a maximum of 10 documents.

 
Welcome, Guest
Blog Feed LiveStream Feed Discover Applied (Twitter) LinkedIn
ITEMS TO DOWNLOAD
Items to Download:  |  Size: 0Kb
Premium Content (Registration required)
Online Law Library

Case Summary


Items marked as Premium Premium Content - Sign on to View are available to registered users.  Sign in now for unlimited access.
Patterson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34585 (D. Kan. Apr. 23, 2009).  Premium Content - Sign on to View
The court denied plaintiff’s motion for an order requiring defendant to produce backup tapes for almost ten years and to provide information about defendant’s policies regarding computer systems, email storage, and employee use of company and personal computers. The parties had failed to follow the district court’s local guidelines for electronically stored information, and plaintiff had served its requests for production just three and a half months before the close of discovery.

Plaintiff in an action under the Americans with Disabilities Act requested an order requiring defendant’s production of policies related to email and employee use of company and personal computers. Plaintiff also sought discovery about defendant’s information technology department and production going back almost ten years of backup tapes with email and electronic data relating to the action. Defendant offered only to search its backup tapes for the three specific dates when plaintiff signed a “last chance” agreement, plaintiff’s employment was terminated, and plaintiff’s grievance hearing was held.

The court directed defendant to search its backup tapes for the three dates at defendant’s cost. Plaintiff’s motion otherwise was denied because the parties had neglected the issue of electronically stored information until plaintiff filed its requests for production with less than four months remaining to complete discovery. The court held that if the parties had complied with the electronically stored information guidelines of the District of Kansas, the issues raised by plaintiff’s motion would have been addressed or avoided.

Click here for more information on the District of Kansas ESI guidelines.