Yesterday, we discussed the latest event in the eDiscovery case of the year – the defendant’s response opposing the plaintiff’s motion for recusal. I thought today we would discuss the plaintiffs’ latest objection – to United States District Court Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck's rejection of their request to stay discovery pending the resolution of outstanding motions and objections. However, news in this case happens quickly.
In a short, one-page order on Monday, Judge Peck issued a stay, stopping defendant MSLGroup's production of electronically stored information in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, (Case No. 11-CV-1279).
Here is the content of the order:
“On reconsideration, for the reasons stated at today's conference (see transcript), the Court has granted plaintiffs' request to stay MSL's production of ESI, pending Judge Carter's decision on plaintiffs' motions for collective action certification and to amend their complaint. Defendants have consented to the stay. Jurisdictional discovery regarding Publicis, and discovery between plaintiff and MSL unrelated to MSL's ESI production, are not stayed.
Plaintiffs' May 9, 2012 objections to my prior denial of the stay (Dkt. No. 190) are moot.”
That’s it – short and sweet (to the plaintiffs, at least).
This came after the plaintiffs filed an objection last Wednesday (May 9) to Judge Peck's rejection of their request to stay discovery pending the resolution of outstanding motions and objections. Those motions include a ruling on the plaintiffs' objections to Judge Peck's dismissal of the plaintiffs' issues associated with discovery with predictive coding, the plaintiffs' motion for Peck to recuse himself from the case and motions for conditional certification of collective action and for leave to file a second amended complaint.
More to come, I’m sure.
So, what do you think? Will computer-assisted review be derailed in this case after all? Was Judge Peck right to stay production? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.
Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.
Browse eDiscovery Daily Blog