In a large commercial dispute arising from a subcontract on an SAP implementation project, the plaintiffs sought an order imposing a discovery plan and requiring further documentary production from the defendant.
The defendant had initially produced substantially fewer documents and later disclosed that thousands of additional documents from a project repository had not been produced due to inadvertence.
The court addressed the role of proportionality in electronic discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure and emphasized that discovery must be proportionate to the issues and costs of the litigation.
The court ordered additional electronic searches and production from selected custodians and directed restoration and review of backup data using specified search parameters.
The defendant’s cross‑motion seeking reciprocal additional production from the plaintiffs was dismissed.
