Rule 34 and the Obligation to Organize and Categorize Documents


Sometimes, parties will produce a tremendous volume of uncategorized documents in response to discovery requests. This tactic -- the "document dump" -- can stymie the ability of the discovering party to review and analyze the documents in a meaningful way. Fortunately, courts have seen through this tactic.  Courts have ordered disclosing parties to organize and categorize large volumes of documents and identify the discovery requests to which each document corresponds:

"[Disclosing parties] are incorrect in thinking they can haphazardly produce documents without reference to which request the documents are produced." Glover v. Bd. of Educ. of Rockford Pub. Sch., Dist. 205, No. 02 C 50143, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6358, 2004 WL 785270, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 9, 2004). To ensure a fair and clear record, the Union will be "ordered to Bates Stamp all documents produced to Plaintiff and to indicate which documents correspond to the categories requested." Id.; see also Flentye v. Kathrein, No. 06 C 3492, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74260, 2007 WL 2903128, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 2, 2007) (requiring a party to produce  [*31] Bates-stamped documents comprising the initial disclosures required under Rule 26)".

Gregg v. Local 305 IBEW, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40761, *30-31(N.D. Ill. 2009)

Overbroad Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 30(b)(6) Deposition Notices

Corporations are required, under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 30(b)(6) to produce a witness or witnesses who can testify about specific topics identified in the Deposition Notice. Sometimes, corporations are served with Notices that have 20, 30 or 40 topics. It can be difficult, if not impossible to prepare a witness for all of those topics.  This creates a further risk to corporations because there is case law that provides that a corporation cannot offer evidence on a topic that was covered by a 30(b)(6) notice if the witness was not prepared to testify that topic. [See previous post on this blog]

Courts, however, have shown a willingness to limit overly broad Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 30(b)(6) notices.   The best discussion is by Magistrate Judge Facciola:  - 

"a 30(b)(6) deposition, which by its nature can be time-consuming and inefficient, be productive and not simply an excuse to seek information that is already known. See Banks v. Office of the Senate Sargeant of Arms, 222 F.R.D. 7, 19 (D.D.C. 2004) (ordering the parties to find topics that will "insure that the 30(b)(6) depositions are meaningful exercises in ascertaining information that has not been previously discovered" and ordering the party seeking discovery "not [to] ask questions that duplicate questions previously asked of other witness or seek information that he already has by virtue of responses to other discovery devices")"

Tri-State Hosp. Supply Corp. v. United States, 226 F.R.D. 118, 126 (D.D.C 2005)

See also Accord Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27082 (D. Colo. 2017) (affirming Magistrate Judge's ruling narrowing seventeen 30(b)(6) topics  to one topic. Magistrate Judge ruled that the notice was not proportional and covered topics better suited to less onerous discovery)