Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mike Sarieddine’s trademark suit against Connected International and related defendants concerns alleged rights in marks including ALIEN VAPE, ALIEN, and AREA 51 and defendants’ use of ALIENLABS and AREA 41. During discovery, Sarieddine moved to compel further responses to numerous requests for production. The dispute covered the breadth and relevance of the requests, defendants’ objections, how they searched for responsive material, and whether production was finished.
The parties’ joint statement presented representative requests rather than reproducing every request. Sarieddine argued that the objections were vague or boilerplate and that defendants had not demonstrated a reasonable search. He also objected that supplemental responses continued to reserve a right to amend, leaving unclear whether additional documents remained as the discovery deadline approached.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Allison Claire granted the motion in part. She declined to compel amended substantive responses. The objections to relevance, scope, vagueness, privilege, and confidentiality appeared specific rather than impermissibly boilerplate, and Sarieddine had not adequately countered them. The court also noted that his joint-statement presentation inaccurately omitted portions of a response used as his example, which undermined the argument that the response was deficient.
The court nevertheless required transparency about the search. Rule 34 requires a reasonable inquiry for documents within a party’s possession, custody, or control. Sarieddine effectively argued that defendants had not conducted an adequate search, and defendants did not address that contention even in the joint statement. The court therefore compelled a summary identifying the search protocols used.
The court also required a definitive statement about completion. Some supplemental responses identified produced documents or said no further documents existed, but continued reservations and the parties’ later correspondence left the overall status unclear. Within 21 days, defendants had to provide the search-protocol summary and certify that production for the disputed requests was complete, or produce remaining responsive nonprivileged documents and log anything withheld as privileged. Each side was ordered to bear its own fees and costs. The ruling did not determine that any particular additional responsive document existed.
Key Takeaways
- Specific objections are not automatically boilerplate merely because they incorporate general objections.
- A responding party should be prepared to explain enough about its custodians, systems, and search methods to demonstrate a reasonable inquiry.
- Open-ended reservations to supplement can create uncertainty and support an order requiring a completion certification.
- The court separated the sufficiency of written objections from the adequacy and finality of the underlying document search.
Why It Matters
Discovery fights increasingly focus on process, not only wording. A party may have defensible objections yet still be required to show that it used a reasonable search and to state clearly when production is complete. That distinction is especially important in document-heavy intellectual-property cases.
Counsel should document custodians, repositories, search terms or methods, and completion decisions during the collection process. Joint statements must quote responses accurately and explain why challenged searches are deficient. Clear certifications and privilege logs can prevent uncertainty from extending beyond the discovery cutoff.
The order does not establish a universal entitlement to every detail of an opponent’s electronic-discovery methodology. Its result turned on defendants’ failure to answer a concrete reasonable-search challenge and the continuing uncertainty about completion. Parties resisting similar requests should submit a focused explanation of the inquiry performed, while protecting privileged attorney work product and genuinely sensitive system information. Parties moving to compel should connect requested protocol information to specific gaps, missing custodians, unexplained date ranges, or inconsistent production representations rather than demand it reflexively.