Flava Works, Inc. v. Gunter d/b/a myVidster.com, No. 10 C 6517, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2013) (Grady, Sen. J.).
Judge Shadur granted in part plaintiff Flava Works’ motion to compel responses to discovery requests. Of particular note, the Court held as follows:
Neither Flava Work’s complaint nor the Seventh Circuit’s decision limited Flava Work’s claims to its backup functionality. Defendant’s therefore, could not limit their responses to the backup functionality. While the Court did not strike defendants’ general objections, it disregarded them as “impermissible.” Based upon their lack of specificity, they did “not accomplish anything useful.” Documents withheld based upon general objections were to be identified and produced. A present tense interrogatory seeking a user count was sufficiently answered with a present user count. The interrogatory was fully answered without historic user information. Defendants need not identify Bates ranges of responsive documents where the documents were produced as they were kept in the normal course of business, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i).