selectively omitting documents.
CMG clearly, as indicated in court documents, produced the very statements that some are suggesting they did not. Why omit data?
Since August 25, 2017, Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants have produced more than 30,000 pages of documents responsive to Defendants’ requests. Each of Plaintiff’s productions have included a load file which, when used with an e-discovery review system, identifies the specific requests to which the documents respond. The load file also provided metadata which is
commonly produced, providing information about the documents, allowing email to be threaded together into conversations and identifying attachments and other related documents.
Plaintiff’s counsel and Plaintiff’s ESI consultants met and conferred by telephone and by email with Defendants’ counsel and ESI consultants several times concerning issues that Defendant had with the format of one or more load files which Plaintiff produced and Plaintiff produced additional
load files to attempt to address any technical issues which Defendants had identified. On or before February 13, 2018
February 16, 2018, Plaintiff will produce another load file identifying the requests to which all documents produced respond.
Defendants have failed to identify the document requests to which their production responds. However, Defendants have agreed to produce a load file which identifies the request to which their documents respond.
Below, Plaintiff responds to each of the document categories addressed in Defendants’ motion.
A. Corporate Governance Documents
Plaintiff has produced at least 1,750 of documents responsive to requests for CMG’s corporate governance documents. In addition, Plaintiff’s initial production contained CMG’s annual reports, financial statements, SEC filings and other corporate governance documents which Defendants have requested. Defendants are capable of searching this initial production set to
locate such documents. Plaintiff has produced all requested documents in its possession and custody which are responsive to requests 8, 34, 35, and 41.
B. CMG Financial and Oversight Documents
Plaintiff has previously produced more than 1,870 documents responsive to these requests. In addition, Plaintiff will serve a supplemental production on February 16 that is further responsive to requests 13, 29, 38, 42, 43, 44, 47 and 48. Once Plaintiff completes its production on February
16, it will have produced all documents responsive to these requests in its possession and custody.
? Request 13: Plaintiff has produced more than 28 documents responsive to the request for American Express coded statements.
? Requests 29, 38, 42, 43, and 44: Plaintiff has produced more than 1,870 documents responsive to requests 29, 38, and 44.
? Requests 47 and 48: Plaintiff has produced more than 1,737 documents responsive to requests 47 and 48 for “[a]ll documents concerning XA’s [and CMG’s] revenues and profits since 2014”. Plaintiff has produced all documents which its former auditor Malone Bailey produced in
response to a subpoena. Accordingly, Plaintiff has produced the auditor work papers and client records from the audit of its 2013 fiscal year financial statements.
