Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Amsted Industries Incorporated v. Tianrui Group Foundry Company

November 4, 2011

AMSTED INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TIANRUI GROUP FOUNDRY COMPANY, LTD.; CSR QISHUYAN LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY, LTD.;
STANDARD CAR TRUCK COMPANY, INC.; WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION;
ČKD KUTNA HORA, A.S.; AND OMNICAST, LLC, CJRA TRACK: C DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: David R. Herndon, Chief Judge

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Presumptive Trial Month: April, 2013

ORDER REGARDING E-DISCOVERY

The Court ORDERS as follows:

1. This Order supplements all other discovery rules and orders. It streamlines Electronically Stored Information ("ESI") production to promote a "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination" of this action, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1.

2. This Order may be modified for good cause. The parties shall jointly submit any proposed modifications within 30 days after the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 conference. If the parties cannot resolve their disagreements regarding these modifications, the parties shall submit their competing proposals and a summary of their dispute.

3. Costs will be shifted for disproportionate ESI production requests pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Likewise, a party's non-responsive or dilatory discovery tactics will be cost-shifting considerations.

4. A party's meaningful compliance with this Order and efforts to promote efficiency and reduce costs will be considered in cost-shifting determinations.

5. General ESI production requests under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34 and 45 shall not include metadata absent a showing of good cause. However, fields showing the date and time that the document was sent and received, as well as the complete distribution list, shall generally be included in the production.

6. General ESI production requests under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34 and 45 shall not include email or other forms of electronic correspondence (collectively "email"). To obtain email parties must propound specific email production requests.

7. Email production requests shall only be propounded for specific issues, rather than general discovery of a product or business.

8. Email production requests shall be phased to occur after the parties have exchanged initial disclosures and basic documentation about the patents, the prior art, the accused instrumentalities, and the relevant finances. While this provision does not require the production of such information, the Court encourages prompt and early production of this information to promote efficient and economical streamlining of the case.

9. Email production requests shall identify the custodian, search terms, and timeframe. The parties shall cooperate to identify the proper custodians, proper search terms and proper timeframe.

10. Defendants shall limit their email production requests to a total of 10 custodians collectively from Plaintiff Amsted for all such requests. Amsted shall limit their email production requests to a total of 20 custodians from Defendants for all such requests, with Amsted limited to no more than 10 custodians for any single Defendant. The parties may jointly agree to modify this limit without the Court's leave. The Court shall consider contested requests for up to five additional custodians per producing party, upon showing a distinct need based on the size, complexity, and issues of this specific case. Should a party serve email production requests for additional custodians beyond ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.