Judge Andrews resolved a discovery dispute yesterday where plaintiff challenged defendant's "relevancy redactions." According to the plaintiff:
[Defendant] DuBois routinely applied, and refuses to remove, so-called relevancy redactions to the few documents it has produced in this case. . . . The DuBois redactions that [plaintiff] Ecolab has challenged are not addressed to preserving any privilege and are improper, particularly in view of the protective order that serves to safeguard DuBois’ confidential information in this case.
Judge Andrews seems to have shot this down quickly, holding that the defendant cannot redact for reasons other than privilege:
ORDER: By no later than May 30, 2022, Defendant shall produce to Plaintiffs all documents redacted for reasons other than preservation of privilege without redactions.
We've covered this before, but it's still something seems to come up a lot in discovery, so I thought it was mentioning. At least in Judge Andrews and Judge Burke cases, relevance is not a reason to redact document production.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
