In Hudson v. ATC Aviation Technical Consultants  O.J. No. 1758, Justice Myers considered an appeal from the Master who ordered that the defendant produce a significant number of documents from a substantial time period. The appellant argued that the production order was disproportionate.
On appeal, Myers J. concluded that the Master’s order was correct and that she properly exercised her discretion to order production balancing the facts that were before her. The court noted that this is a significant case involving the loss of three lives with tens of millions of dollars in damages being claimed. In contrast, there had been no evidence before the Master about whether the information was “conveniently accessible” or any description of the hardship that might be caused by the broad production order.
Case in point. On a Proportionality Motion, it is critical to come to Court armed with the evidence that the Court will need to assess all of the proportionality factors. The Court will need to know how long the production will take, how much will it cost and whether the data is accessible or involves an expensive recovery exercise. All of those factors are critical. Absent the producing party providing evidence as to why the production order is disproportionate, the Court may not accept that a broad production is disproportionate.
Kate Manning will be speaking on “Document Review Best Practices” at a breakfast panel at the OBA on May 1, 2014. The program will feature discussion about effective and practical strategies for a successful document review. Please click here for more details.
Chuck Rothman was quoted in The Lawyers Weekly on April 18, 2014.
Rothman observed that “Certain U.S. states have banned Google Glass over privacy concerns. They don’t want people filming everybody around them… the specter of people-watching from cafés may be little more than fear mongering, (but) keeping Glass out of places like locker rooms seems a more legitimate goal.”
To read the full article, please click here.