From Doc 322.
-----
Even a cursory review of Sakar’s responses to e.Digital’s discovery requests demonstrates that Sakar has not even attempted to discharge its obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Without exception, Sakar has objected to each and every discovery request posed by e.Digital and has produced just 314 pages of documents, representing five of its user/owner manuals. Perhaps the best example of the cavalier attitude with which Sakar approaches its discovery obligations is its response to Interrogatory Number 14 which requested, as is often the case in interrogatories:
Identify all persons who were consulted or who provided information in connection with the preparation of Your answers to each Interrogatory, and, for each such person, state the Interrogatory or Interrogatories in connection with which he or she provided information or was consulted.
Sakar responded as follows:
Sakar objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks production of information or material that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine exemption from discovery, the consulting expert exemption from discovery, the investigative privilege, the community interest privilege, and/or any other applicable constitutional, statutory, or common law privilege.Sakar objects because this interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant and therefore not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence when it asks Sakar to identify “all” persons who were “consulted” or “who provided information.” Sakar objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for information not within Sakar’s possession, custody or control.
Leaving aside the fact that Sakar’s interrogatory responses do not contain any substantive information thereby obviating any argument that the identity of the persons who provided this non-substantive information is somehow “burdensome,” Sakar’s allegation that the information is somehow “irrelevant” and “not within Sakar’s possession, custody or control” is simply beyond the pale. This is but one example of Sakar’s dilatory approach to discovery, the remainder of which are set forth in greater detail below.
