Data and documents provided by Industrial Heat to Rossi, per Rossi requests. Sometimes we get what we ask for.
0091.0_IH_objection_to_hearing_notice
The substance here is Pace’s objection to 0087-0_hearing_notice
Pace claims that, instead of addressing possibly new issues about IH production of documents, this was an attempt by the Plaintiff to relitigate issues already decided by 0074-0_order_re_discovery
The hearing was scheduled for December 20 at 3 PM, and the objection is shown as file December 20 at 10:22 AM. Perhaps timely. According to D.E. 92, there was a hearing lasting 50 minutes, and Pace did appear. We will likely see an Order.
This is what has been noticed by many, my emphasis:
On October 25, 2016, plaintiff Andrea Rossi filed a notice of hearing on, inter alia, Industrial Heat’s objections to his First Request for Production of Documents to Industrial Heat and his Second Request for Production of Documents to Industrial Heat, which included a total of 63 document requests (the “RFP Objections”) [D.E. 70]. The Court conducted a hearing that lasted over an hour on the RFP Objections on October 27, 2016 [D.E. 71], after which it entered an order dated November 8, 2016 (the “Order”) [D.E. 74]. In accordance with the Order, Industrial Heat has since produced over 3 terabytes of testing data and related materials (including documents, data, videos and photographs) and over 100,000 additional pages of documents. (In comparison, Rossi has not produced any documents, though he has produced some photographs and videos.)
0070-0_rossi_hearing_notice_re_discovery Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 3:00 p.m before Magistrate re Rossi requests for production and interrogatories
== 0070-1_ih_response_to_1st_rossi_prod_request
== 0070-2_ih_response_to_1st_rossi_interrog
== 0070-3_ih_response_to_2nd_rossi_prod_request
== 0070-4_vaughn_response_to_1st_rossi_interrog
0071.0 Hearing Minute Entry hearing set up in document 70 before Magistrate 10/27/2016. The transcript is not available on-line.
PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John J. O’Sullivan: Discovery Hearing held on 10/27/2016. John Annesser and Ryan Chaiken/plaintiffs; Christopher Pace and Christopher Lomax/defendants. (Digital 14:51:20.) (cg1) (Entered: 10/27/2016)
0074-0_order_re_discovery relating to hearing doc 71
Rossi has noted on his blog that he is dealing with a vast pile of documents. Now we have an idea of the actual size of that pile. Sometimes you get what you ask for. The respondent is not responsible for indexing the material. Deliberate obfuscation would be frowned on by the Court, but handing them a vast pile of unlabeled DVDs jammed with data would not be deliberate obfuscation, merely doing the minimum required. In fact, production could mean.
“Here is web access.”
“But it will take me two months to download all that!”
“My condolences. For $10 each, we will put it on DVDs for you. Or you can come into our office with your own media, we’ll give your attorney access. Your choice, of course.”
(How does one transfer 3 TB of data? Probably on a portable drive. $120 for a 4 TB drive. Plus tax.)
See
0075-0_ih_hearing_notice_re_75-1 Discovery hearing December 6, 2016 at 2:00 p.m., on Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants’ Responses and Objections to Defendants’ First Request for Production to Plaintiffs.
== 0075-1_rossi_response_and_objection_to_rfp
(the hearing was cancelled by IH.) From D.E. 75:
Responses and Objections to Request for Production, my emphasis added.
Request No. 1: All videos, photographs or other recordings of visual images (regardless of the medium on which the recording is stored) created, recorded or fixed in a tangible medium of expression on or after January 2, 1015, of (a) the Doral Location (either of the inside or outside of
the Doral Location), (b) some or all of the contents of the Doral Location, (c) any individuals inside the Doral Location, or (d) events or activities occurring at the Doral Location. This Request includes, but is not limited to, all of the “movies” and “photos” referenced by Andrea Rossi in his
blog posting of May 1, 2016, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A.
Answer: Subject to Plaintiffs objections to the instructions above, Plaintiffs shall make the responsive, non-privileged, documents and/or information available for inspection and copying at the office of the undersigned counsel within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Response. In the alternative, the undersigned counsel will confer with counsel for Defendants and will coordinate to have copies of such responsive documents/information made for Defendants at Defendants’ expense.
