The court sanctioned plaintiff under FRCP 26(g) because plaintiff did not conduct a reasonable search for responsive documents, but instead relied upon prosecution counsel's statements that it was "highly unlikely" there were responsive documents not already produced in counsel's hard copy and ESI files. "The Court concludes that the appropriate sanction here is to require Plaintiff to allow Defendants to conduct a quick peek of all hard copy [and ESI files from prosecution counsel] that may contain any information at all responsive to [certain document requests]. . . . Plaintiff is not permitted to exclude any documents from this quick peek on the grounds that they are not relevant or protected by any privilege."
Thermal Solutions, Inc. v. Imura International U.S.A., Inc. et al., 2-08-cv-02220 (KSD April 28, 2010, Memorandum & Order) (Waxse, M.J.)