IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
June 29, 2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX REL. JOE LIOTINE, PLAINTIFF,
CDW GOVERNMENT, INC., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Donald G. Wilkerson United States Magistrate Judge
A discovery dispute conference was held on June 28, 2011, before United States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson. Based on the information provided to the Court at that conference, the Court ORDERS the following:
1. CDW-G Senior Vice President Kevin Adams informed the Court that sales data for the past three years is easy to produce, but information from sales prior to three years ago is archived and must be retrieved and restored. To the extent Defendant CDW-G has not produced the requested information regarding sales transactions from 1999 to the present, Defendant is ORDERED to produce that information in the format in which it would be restored in the usual course of business. CDW-G is under no obligation to create a searchable format in which to produce the information, neither can CDW-G hide information by claiming that it cannot be produced in the requested format.
2. Defendant CDW-G is ORDERED to produce price codes from the "contract editor" database dating from 1999 to the present. Production of this information should also resolve Relator's questions regarding the industrial funding fees.
3. To the extent the information has not previously been produced, Defendant CDW-G is ORDERED to produce information regarding modifications in schedules in Microsoft Excel format. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer regarding any prior production of this information in Excel format.
4. Kevin Adams informed the Court that a legend explaining the various codes for the AS-400 data has already been produced. The Court thus finds this issue to be MOOT.
5. Kevin Adams informed the Court that information regarding the country of origin of the products sold has already been produced as it is kept in the normal course of business. The Court therefore finds this issue to be MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.