Opinion
22-cv-05815-TSH
03-06-2024
CONDALISA LEGRAND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendant.
DISCOVERY ORDER
RE: DKT. NO. 81
THOMAS S. HIXSON, United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff moves to compel Abbott to use Plaintiff's proposed versions of Terms 1-8 and 17. ECF No. 81 & Ex. 12. The Court GRANTS the motion.
For Terms 1-6, the dramatic effect of adding the “Ensure” limitation raises a strong inference that employees affiliated with Ensure are unlikely to mention the brand expressly every time they discuss relevant topics. That means the “Ensure” limitation is not a reasonable one and that it likely screens out relevant documents. Abbott's burden argument is hard to evaluate. Given the similarities between the Terms, you can't just add up the reviewable documents for each Term to come up with a total because it is likely that the same documents hit multiple Terms.
For Terms 7, 8 and 17, we're not talking about many documents, and Abbott's proposed revisions to the search terms don't make a big difference anyway.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.