Montgomery Water Power Co. v. Chapman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that the drafters of Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(ii) intended to treat ESI as an entirely new category, separate and apart from documents, in order to recognize that text searching (footnote continued
• outlining the history of Rule 34 and noting that “documents” is “the catchall term for virtually all discoverable material”
• “The usual course of business—in the days of warehousing large numbers of hard copy documents—meant giving the requesting party free access to the facility without any culling or reviewing for responsiveness by the producing party.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).