Opinion
C. A. 2021-0483-JRS
12-22-2021
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL
Joseph R. Slights III, Vice Chancellor
AND NOW, this 22nd day of December 2021, the Court having considered Defendant's Motion to Compel (the "Motion"), and the response thereto, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The discovery at issue seeks relevant information and Plaintiff has not carried his burden to sustain an "overly burdensome" objection.
2. Notwithstanding the foregoing, given the condensed time between now and trial, the parameters of the discovery request must be narrowed to allow time for the discovery to occur. Accordingly, Defendant shall narrow the search protocol to ten (10) specifically identified individuals to include, if desired, Randy Chen. Defendant shall deliver the revised search parameters to counsel for Plaintiff by close of business on December 23, 2021.
3. Plaintiff shall collect and review his potentially responsive text and other chat messages in accordance with Defendant's revised protocol and shall produce his non-privileged responsive text and other chat messages by January 4, 2022.
See Meltzer v. CNET Networks, Inc., 2007 WL 2593065, at *2 (Del. Ch. Sept. 6, 2007) (observing that a plaintiff's purpose in demanding inspection of book and records and seeking to compel compliance with an inspection demand is "unquestionably" relevant in a Section 220 proceeding); Prod. Res. Gp., L.L.C. v. NCT Gp., Inc., 863 A.2d 772, 802 (Del. Ch. 2004) (noting that the "burden is on [the objecting party] to show why the requested information is improperly requested"); In re Oxbow Carbon LLC Unitholder Litig., 2017 WL 959396, at *3 (Del. Ch. Mar. 13, 2017) ("For an objecting party to carry its burden, the [unduly burdensome] objection must be specific [and] the party making it must explain why it applies on the facts of the case to the request being made. . . .").