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)