COVETRUS INC et al v. ACTIAN CORPORATION

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
COVETRUS, INC., et al. , )
)
Plaintiffs )
v. ) No. 2:21-cv-00097-LEW
)
ACTIAN CORPORATION, )
)
Defendant )
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE
Following a discovery conference on January 19, 2022, I ordered the parties to submit letter
briefs regarding the defendant’s request to physically inspect certain computers and servers
belonging to the plaintiffs. See ECF Nos. 80, 87. Specifically, I ordered them “to address in their
briefs (1) the benefit of a physical inspection of the computers and servers over the inspection of
forensic images of those devices that is apparently not opposed by the plaintiffs; (2) the burden to
the plaintiffs of a physical inspection, and (3) any relevant caselaw.” ECF No. 87.
Having now reviewed the parties’ briefs (ECF Nos. 95, 96, 99, 100) and the authorities
cited therein, I accept that a physical inspection may provide some additional benefit to the
defendant but conclude that the benefit is outweighed by the burden such a physical inspection
would impose on the plaintiffs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The plaintiffs have agreed to produce
forensic images of the devices that the defendant seeks to inspect as well as the technical
specifications of those devices; they are hereby ORDERED to do so by March 7, 2022. I anticipate
that the production will be made pursuant to the existing confidentiality order (ECF No. 43) and
that, if there are any details that still need to be worked out regarding the exact procedure of the
production, the parties will be able to handle such arrangements on their own. Finally, if the
Case 2:21-cv-00097-SDN Document 103 Filed 02/21/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
defendant’s inspection of the forensic images reveals that they are not as thorough and complete
as the plaintiffs have represented, the defendant may, of course, seek further assistance from the
court.
NOTICE
In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may serve and file an
objection to this order within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to review by the
district court and to any further appeal of this order.
Dated this 21st day of February, 2022.
/s/ John H. Rich III
John H. Rich III
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:21-cv-00097-SDN Document 103 Filed 02/21/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>