Archive - February 17, 2006

Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 2006 WL 335846 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 14, 2006)

In this patent infringement case, the court had issued a Case Management Order that set scheduling deadlines and required the parties to confer and cooperate on certain tasks necessary to the orderly conduct of the litigation. Discovery became very contentious, and the court issued an order to show cause requesting the parties to explain why the parties and/or their counsel should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with the Case Management Order. Although the court decided it could not hold either party in contempt, it advised that the parties’ exchange of emails and written correspondence did not satisfy the CMO’s meet and confer requirement: “The Court’s understanding of the phrase “meet and confer” is a conference in which opposing parties actually talk to one another.”

Bergersen v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 2006 WL 334675 (D. Kan. Feb. 14, 2006)

In this wrongful termination case, defendants produced three CDs containing a total of 7,253 documents which, according to plaintiff, were not “kept in any perceivable sequential order.” Plaintiff argued that the production did not comply with Rule 34(b), which requires a party to produce documents “as they are kept in the usual course of business or . . . organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the request.” Despite the fact that defendants had the documents scanned onto computer disc, they contended that they were produced as they were kept in the usual course of business. They argued that they produced all responsive documents and were under no obligation to specifically identify any such documents or to provide a directory of documents produced. Read More

Free Speech Coalition v. Gonzales, 406 F.Supp.2d 1196 (D. Colo. 2005)

In this case, plaintiffs were all involved, in various capacities, in the adult entertainment industry. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to protect themselves from any enforcement action pending the litigation. Among other things, plaintiffs challenged new recordkeeping requirements under the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act and associated regulations. Ultimately, the court found that plaintiffs had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success in demonstrating that the amended portions of the statute and regulations created an undue burden as they related to chat rooms and to websites not controlled by the producer. The court therefore enjoined the Attorney General, pending the outcome of these proceedings or further order, from enforcing 28 C.F.R. �� 75.2(a)(1)(i) against any of the plaintiffs in their operation of an Internet chat room and from enforcing 28 C.F.R. �� 75.2(a)(1)(ii) against any of the plaintiffs or members of FSC with regards to a website that is not controlled by that plaintiff or member of the Free Speech Coalition. Read More