Source: http://www.compellingdiscovery.com/?p=3582
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 14:26:05+00:00

Document:
Has the opposing party been sued before in a semi-similar fact pattern? Are you salivating at the prospect of sending a request for production seeking all discovery from that prior case? It is not as easy as sending a request for production for all documentation produced in prior litigation.
This is not an isolated decision. Chen v. Ampco Sys. Parking was a wage and hour case engaging in pre-class action certification discovery. The plaintiff sent four requests for production.
Document Request No. 2 asks Defendant to produce all statements and declarations that relate or refer to the state cases.
Document Request No. 6 asks Defendant to produce all discovery produced by Ampco in the state cases, including written discovery responses, documents and deposition transcripts.
Document Request No. 7 asks Defendant to produce all discovery that Ampco received in the state cases, including the same document types as in Doc. Req. No. 6.
[A]ny action from January 1, 2001, to the present, in any state or federal court in the United States, or in a foreign court or tribunal, where it was claimed or alleged that an artificial hip designed, manufactured, or distributed by a Wright entity failed in such a way that the component known as the “modular neck” corroded, fretted, or fractured, regardless of whether that exact language was used.
Other courts reached similar conclusions. Moore v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., 07 C 5606, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88300, 2008 WL 4681942 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2008)(“A party’s requested discovery must be tied to the particular claims at issue in the case” and that “just because the information was produced in another lawsuit … does not mean that it should be produced in this lawsuit”); Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 05-CV-329, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72769, 2006 WL 2862216 (N.D. Okla. 2006)(denying motion to compel production of documents made available “in a similar poultry waste pollution lawsuit previously brought in this Court” absent a showing of more than “surface similarities” between the cases); Midwest Gas Services Inc. v. Indiana Gas Co., Inc., No. IP 99-690, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8098, 2000 WL 760700 (S.D. Ind. March 7, 2000)(in a private antitrust action, refusing to compel production of documents provided to the United States in response to a civil investigation demand absent a showing of relevance); Payne v. Howard, 75 F.R.D. 465, 469 (D. D.C. 1977)(stating that “[w]hether pleadings in one suit are ‘reasonably calculated’ to lead to admissible evidence in another suit is far from clear” and that such a determination requires consideration of “the nature of the claims, the time when the critical events in each case took place, and the precise involvement of the parties, among other considerations”).
 2:15-cv-1774, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98776 (D. Nev. July 28, 2016).
 08-cv-0422, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71633 , 2009 WL 2496729 (S.D. Cal. August 14, 2009).
 10-cv-03104, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56649 *; 2011 WL 1899774 (D. Col. May 18, 2011).
 (quoting Midwest Gas Services Inc. v. Indiana Gas Co., Inc., No. IP 99-690, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8098, 2000 WL 760700 (S.D. Ind. March 7, 2000)).
Copyright © 2019 Compelling Discovery. All rights reserved.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.