ALSO THESE PARAGRAPH FROM DOC 148

Because e.Digital has cooperated in good faith throughout the entire discovery process, and has now produced over 32,000 pages of relevant documents, digEcor’s Motion to Compel should be denied as moot and its overreaching request for fees rejected in its entirety.

Each of the above factors weighs against the award of fees in this case. First, and most importantly, digEcor has never even alleged any prejudice caused by the delay in e.Digital’s production. Secondly, e.Digital has not caused any interference with the judicial process. While it had some delays in producing its documents, at no point did it refuse to work with digEcor on discovery issues, and its difficulties were not based in any intention to obstruct the process. Third, e.Digital’s culpability is low, given the immensity of the discovery requested, and the limited resources it has to devote to the project.7 Further, this is not a case where a motion to compel was necessary to obtain documents that a party simply refused to produce. Rather, e.Digital has always maintained its willingness to produce the requested documents. Finally, e.Digital has not been previously warned by the Court. Based on these factors, it would be unjust for the Court to require e.Digital to pay a very large sum to digEcor, and therefore Rule 37 does not support the imposition of sanctions in this case.8