In Cynosure, LLC v. Reveal Lasers LLC, No. 22-cv-11176-PBS (D. Mass. April 15, 2024), Massachusetts Magistrate Judge Donald L. Cabell, analyzing “whether the defendants have adequately complied” with orders from the Court to supplement certain interrogatory responses and further respond to certain requests for production of documents, granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion, finding that defendants had adequately complied with most of the orders.

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

Judge Cabell addressed several discovery disputes and ruled on multiple issues as follows:

Answers to Interrogatories:

Interrogatories No. 9-11: Judge Cabell found that the defendants adequately responded to Interrogatories No. 9 and 10 by providing tables identifying returned documents. However, the response to Interrogatory No. 11 was insufficient. Judge Cabell ordered the defendants to further supplement their response by identifying any devices from which documents concerning Cynosure were deleted after their employment ended.

Rule 33(d) References: Judge Cabell found the defendants’ supplemental responses, which removed references to Rule 33(d) and incorporated narrative forms, to be adequate. Judge Cabell did not order the translation of Hebrew-language documents, stating: “the First Circuit has previously ruled that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not give the district court any authority to order a party that produces foreign-language documents in discovery to translate those documents into English at its own expense… Instead, the plaintiffs may seek reimbursement of their translation costs from the defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6) should they prevail at trial.”

Document Productions:

Redaction Log: Here, Judge Cabell addressed the issue, as follows: “The plaintiffs object to the defendants’ production of 2,600 redacted documents without an accompanying privilege log and seek an order requiring the defendants to either provide a log or reproduce the documents without redactions…The defendants represent that they produced redaction logs on April 11, 2024…While the court credits this representation, it notes that there is no corroborating information in the declaration that the defendants filed in support of their opposition…Nonetheless, the court, based on the defendants’ representations, denies the motion to compel as moot with respect to the redaction log issue.”

Payroll Records and Communications: Judge Cabell found the defendants’ response insufficiently detailed and ordered the production of all communications between specified individuals from March 2021 to June 2022 and the supplementation of payroll records.

Buchbinder Messages: Here, Judge Cabell addressed the issue, as follows: “The defendants indicate that they are in the process of collecting messages from Mr. Buchbinder’s cell phone and ‘will be able to produce relevant communications from [the] phone no later than next Wednesday, April 17.’…Given that representation, the court orders the defendants to produce said messages by April 17, 2024, subject to the agreements the parties have already reached regarding the messages’ format and authenticity.”

Depositions:

Reopening Buchbinder Deposition: Judge Cabell denied the plaintiffs’ request to reopen Buchbinder’s deposition without prejudice, allowing them to renew the request after reviewing the newly produced messages.

Reopening Reveal Lasers’ 30(b)(6) Deposition: Judge Cabell denied the request to reopen the deposition of Cory Murrell, the corporate designee, finding him adequately prepared. However, he acknowledged improper objections by defense counsel and ordered Reveal Lasers to provide written answers to eight specific questions regarding their discovery efforts.

Sanctions:

Judge Cabell declined to award $21,000 in attorney fees in connection with this motion to compel, citing reasonable arguments from both sides on various issues.

So, what do you think? Do you think defendants adequately complied with most requests? Is this level of discovery on discovery warranted? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.