Cross-Motions to Compel Granted and Denied in Part in Ohio
In O’Malley v. Naphcare, Inc. et. al., Case No. 12-326 (S.D. Ohio, Oct. 21, 2015), Plaintiff sued Defendant for wrongful termination, age discrimination, and defamation under Ohio law. Both parties propounded discovery requests upon the other, and both parties alleged that the other had submitted deficient responses. After several meet and confer sessions and one status conference failed to resolve the disputes, the court ordered the parties to brief the issues.
Plaintiff’s Motion sought production of ESI as well as certain documents and a privilege log. The court denied her motion as to the privilege log as moot because Defendants had produced privilege logs before the hearing without objection. The court also denied the motion as to the ESI. Plaintiff had alleged that Defendants did not produce any emails responsive to her requests using the search terms she had provided but Defendants’ counsel ultimately agreed (without the court’s intervention) that they would perform the search and produce nonprivileged emails.
Defendants’ Motion also sought production of certain documents as well as production of evidence of communications Plaintiff had with others about the case on social media. While Plaintiff produced emails purporting to show social media exchanges, she did not provide the actual posts. She claimed she lacked the sophistication to do so, and the court ordered her to get her attorneys’ assistance and supplement her responses.