MARTIN AND HARRIS PRIVATE LIMITED, 2:20-cv-17070

Background

M&H filed a §1782 application (Nov. 24, 2020) seeking discovery from Merck for use in pending litigation in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay against Organon India and related entities.
The magistrate judge denied Merck’s motion to quash and directed production in June–July 2021, and the parties executed a stipulation governing document production.
After a period of apparent compliance, the parties reported additional discovery disputes in a joint status report (Apr. 28, 2022); the Court resolved those disputes in a June 15, 2022 Order.
M&H moved for partial reconsideration (June 29, 2022), asking primarily (a) to extend deposition-related deadlines and (b) to compel Merck to use M&H’s proposed ESI custodians and search terms (or at least meet and confer about them).
Merck cross-moved for clarification and an extension, arguing it needed more time to collect and process ESI and raising burden concerns about paper-document collections.
The Court granted extensions (production due Sept. 14, 2022; notice of deposition dates due Oct. 14, 2022; depositions complete by Nov. 14, 2022), denied M&H’s reconsideration request to compel additional custodians/search terms, and denied Merck’s clarification motion as untimely but reiterated Merck must search agreed custodians and both electronic and hard-copy documents.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Whether to extend deadlines for Merck’s supplemental production and for depositions	M&H needed to review Merck’s production before identifying deponents and sought deadlines tied to date of Merck’s final production	Merck agreed to an extension (requested 45 days) because it needed time to pull drives, process ESI, run searches, review and privilege-screen	Court found good cause; extended production to Sept. 14, 2022; deposition notices due Oct. 14, 2022; depositions complete by Nov. 14, 2022 (no further extensions)
2) Whether to compel Merck to produce ESI and documents using custodians/search terms M&H proposed on Mar. 18, 2022	M&H argued the March 18 list was a starting point and Merck should be ordered to search additional custodians and terms or at least meet and confer	Merck opposed using M&H’s terms/custodians and contended parties had agreed searches would be limited to email files; it also disputed the need for further meet-and-confers	Court denied reconsideration; held M&H failed to show the Court overlooked controlling facts or law and had had prior opportunity to negotiate/call out disputes in the joint report
3) Whether the Court misinterpreted M&H’s request and should order further meet-and-confers	M&H contended the Court misunderstood and should have ordered additional meet-and-confers to resolve custodians/search-terms gaps	Merck said parties had already been ordered to meet and confer twice and the joint report reflected remaining disputes; further meet-and-confers would be unproductive	Court rejected M&H’s claim of misinterpretation; denied relief because parties had multiple mandated meet-and-confers and M&H did not identify overlooked facts or authority
4) Whether Merck may avoid searching/producing hard-copy (paper) documents and whether the June 15 Order requires such collections	Merck raised burden and delay concerns about a paper collection and sought clarification that literal paper collections were not required	M&H opposed narrowing the scope and asserted the June 15 Order required both ESI and hard-copy searches under agreed custodians/terms	Court denied Merck’s clarification as untimely but exercised discretion to confirm the June 15 Order requires Merck to search both electronic information (including emails) and hard-copy documents using the previously agreed terms/custodians and to produce responsive documents by the extended deadline

Key Cases Cited

Scopia Mortg. Corp. v. Greentree Mortg. Co., L.P., 184 F.R.D. 526 (D.N.J. 1998) (scheduling orders are central to case management and may not be disregarded absent good cause)
Koplove v. Ford Motor Co., 795 F.2d 15 (3d Cir. 1986) (explains limits on disregarding scheduling orders)
Max’s Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999) (motion for reconsideration may correct manifest errors or present newly discovered evidence)
Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666 (3d Cir. 2010) (describes purpose and narrow scope of reconsideration motions)
Tehan v. Disability Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 111 F. Supp. 2d 542 (D.N.J. 2000) (motions for reconsideration are an extremely limited procedural vehicle)
Yurecko v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 279 F. Supp. 2d 606 (D.N.J. 2003) (motions for reconsideration should not introduce new arguments or merely rehash prior submissions)