skills/document-discovery/references/real-exemplars.md

# Real litigation exemplars

These records are technique evidence, not governing law or a substitute for current, local authority. They show how litigants and courts have framed scope, proportionality, control, privilege, supplementation, and conferral in actual matters. Confirm the governing rules, standing orders, protective orders, and current authority for the jurisdiction and proceeding at hand.

Use the links as research leads. Do not treat a filed position as correct merely because it was filed, and do not infer that an order’s result endorses every argument in the underlying paper. Where a source is sensitive, redacted, sealed, old, or hosted in an archive rather than a current docket, preserve that limitation in the research record.

Do not reproduce these pleadings, letters, or exhibits wholesale. Prefer a source link plus a short, attributed excerpt or paraphrased technique note. If a training or drafting aid is needed, create an anonymized or synthetic sample that preserves the reasoning pattern without copying protected text, confidential material, names, or case-specific facts.

## Responses and objections to requests

### United States v. Dentsply International, Inc.

- **Record:** United States v. Dentsply International, Inc., U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Civil Action No. 99-005 (MMS), *Plaintiff’s Responses and Objections to Defendant’s Second Request for Documents and First Set of Interrogatories*, March 22, 1999.
- **Source and verification:** The [official DOJ case archive](https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-v-dentsply-international-inc) lists the response by title and date. The [DOJ-hosted response PDF](https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/494036/dl) identifies the court, parties, case number, request sets, and response title. The archive is an official government source; because the matter predates modern ECF, the PDF may not have a contemporary ECF filing stamp.
- **What to learn:** The response separates preliminary, general, definitional, and request-specific objections; ties objections to the wording and scope of each request; distinguishes possession, custody, or control from constructive access to third-party or agency files; avoids duplicating documents already produced or publicly available; addresses privilege, work product, confidentiality, and premature expert material; and states what nonprivileged material will be produced. It offers narrowed constructions for ambiguous terms rather than relying only on a blanket refusal. Its Rule 33(d) treatment is a useful example of directing the requesting party to produced records while explaining why an “all facts known by every interviewee” demand is not answerable as phrased.
- **What not to copy:** Do not import its 1999 terminology, agency-specific privilege positions, or request-specific scope conclusions into a current matter. Do not assume that a historical DOJ filing states current Rule 26 or Rule 33 practice. Use its architecture and explanatory discipline, then apply current local rules and the actual record.

### Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

- **Record:** Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:22-cv-10904-JSR, *Government’s Objections and Responses to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s First Set of Interrogatories*, Doc. 61-4, filed February 28, 2023. The same case supplies a later *Third Supplemental Objections and Responses*, Doc. 213-1, filed July 19, 2023.
- **Source and verification:** The [official DOJ court-records index](https://www.justice.gov/epstein/doj-disclosures/court-records-government-united-states-virgin-islands-v-jpmorgan-chase-bank-na-no-122-cv-10904-sdny-2022) links the [filed Doc. 61-4 response](https://www.justice.gov/multimedia/Court%20Records/Government%20of%20the%20United%20States%20Virgin%20Islands%20v.%20JPMorgan%20Chase%20Bank%2C%20N.A.%2C%20No.%20122-cv-10904%20%28S.D.N.Y.%202022%29/061-04.pdf), whose header states “Document 61-4 Filed 02/28/23.” The [later supplemental response](https://www.justice.gov/multimedia/Court%20Records/Government%20of%20the%20United%20States%20Virgin%20Islands%20v.%20JPMorgan%20Chase%20Bank%2C%20N.A.%2C%20No.%20122-cv-10904%20%28S.D.N.Y.%202022%29/213-01.pdf) states its document number and July 19, 2023 filing date. The [Justia docket mirror](https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2022cv10904/591653) independently confirms the case and docket sequence. DOJ disclosure URLs may present an age-verification gate.
- **What to learn:** This is a modern example of defining an institutional party’s answering universe with precision. The response limits answers to the agencies actually involved in the pleaded claim, explains why information held by other entities is outside the responding parties’ control, and connects relevance and proportionality to the damages theory while still answering within a defined universe. The supplemental response is useful for showing that a discovery position can be updated and documented rather than frozen in the initial response.
- **What not to copy:** Do not adopt the Government’s agency boundaries, relevance arguments, or confidentiality assumptions without checking the client’s legal identity, control, claims, and discovery order. A supplemental response is not a substitute for a timely initial response or a complete privilege log.

### In re Intuit Inc. — WilmerHale responses and objections

- **Record:** *In re Intuit Inc.*, Federal Trade Commission Docket No. 9408, *Respondent Intuit Inc.'s Responses and Objections to Complaint Counsel's First Requests for Production of Documents*, served October 3, 2022 and reproduced as Exhibit C to Complaint Counsel's December 12, 2022 motion to compel, FTC Office of the Secretary Document No. 606416. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP represented Intuit.
- **Source and verification:** The [official FTC-filed motion and exhibit](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/d09408_-_complaint_counsel_s_motion_to_compel_production_of_documents_-_public.pdf) contains the actual responses to Requests 1–23 beginning at approximately PDF page 41, the counsel listing, and the procedural account of service and conferral. Intuit's [official filed opposition](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/d09408_-_respondent_s_opposition_to_motion_to_comel_production_of_documents_-_public.pdf) records the October–December conferences and narrowing proposals. The [FTC matter page](https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/192-3119-intuit-inc-matter-turbotax) supplies docket and merits context.
- **What to learn:** This is a modern, private, elite-firm-authored set of actual RFP responses. It separates general scope, privilege, confidentiality, and custody-or-control positions from request-specific answers; says whether Intuit will conduct a reasonable search, produce nonprivileged material on a rolling basis, or withhold; and proposes conferral about the privilege schedule. The record also shows how a categorical refusal, a later narrowing proposal, and a documented series of conferences become the factual substrate for a motion to compel.
- **What not to copy:** These responses arise under FTC Part 3 Rule 3.37, not the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Do not copy their obsolete “reasonably calculated” phrasing, blanket incorporation of general objections, open-ended reservation of later objections, or bare “reasonable search” commitments. Under current practice, identify the request-specific ground and withholding position and, when proportionate and available, the custodians, systems, date ranges, methodology, exclusions, production form, and timing. For structured data, propose a usable export or staged production rather than relying only on an objection that “schema” is undefined.

## Subpoena objections and deficiency correspondence

### United States v. Microsoft Corp. and State of New York ex rel. Spitzer v. Microsoft

- **Record:** United States v. Microsoft Corp. and State of New York ex rel. Attorney General Eliot Spitzer v. Microsoft, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Nos. 98-1232 (TPJ) and 98-1233 (TPJ), *Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents or Alternative In Camera Inspection of Documents*, June 16, 1999. The attached materials include Microsoft’s subpoena and June 15 correspondence between DOJ and Sullivan & Cromwell concerning withheld or redacted documents and a privilege log.
- **Source and verification:** The [official DOJ motion page](https://www.justice.gov/atr/plaintiffs-motion-compel-production-documents-or-alternative-camera-inspection-documents-us-v) identifies both civil actions, the June 16, 1999 motion, the subpoena, the missing privilege log, and the requested relief. The related [official DOJ Exhibit 2533 page](https://www.justice.gov/atr/defendants-exhibit-2533) contains the subpoena and the June 15 letters. The archive is a government-hosted litigation record, but it is an older DOJ archive rather than a modern RECAP/ECF download; the motion page notes that an official signed copy could be obtained from the Antitrust Documents Group.
- **What to learn:** The correspondence proceeds from a particular redaction and document-control reference to a request for an express privilege claim, a privilege log, and an unredacted copy or in-camera alternative. It memorializes counsel’s phone position, keeps the timing dispute separate from the merits, and identifies a concrete cure before seeking court intervention. It is a useful model for a deficiency letter that lets the recipient understand exactly what must be supplemented and why the claim can be tested.
- **What not to copy:** Do not reuse the historical Rule 45 language, subpoena scope, or waiver theory without checking current rules and the subpoena’s issuing court. Do not state that a privilege has been waived merely because an opponent disputes a log; characterize the argument as a position and preserve the procedural record. Do not reproduce the attached correspondence beyond a short permitted excerpt.

### Giuffre v. Maxwell

- **Record:** Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 15-cv-07433, *Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order Regarding Subpoena to Apple, Inc.*, Doc. 205, filed June 13, 2016. A companion motion concerning Microsoft is Doc. 207, filed the same day. The filing caption uses the RWS designation while the docket header reflects LAP after reassignment; cite the document number and filing date with the case number.
- **Source and verification:** The [DOJ-hosted Doc. 205 PDF](https://www.justice.gov/multimedia/Court%20Records/Giuffre%20v.%20Maxwell%2C%20No.%20115-cv-07433%20%28S.D.N.Y.%202015%29/205.pdf) describes the Apple subpoena and the requested protective relief. The [companion Doc. 207 PDF](https://www.justice.gov/multimedia/Court%20Records/Giuffre%20v.%20Maxwell%2C%20No.%20115-cv-07433%20%28S.D.N.Y.%202015%29/207.pdf) concerns Microsoft. The [DOJ decided-motions list](https://www.justice.gov/multimedia/Court%20Records/Giuffre%20v.%20Maxwell%2C%20No.%20115-cv-07433%20%28S.D.N.Y.%202015%29/1049.pdf) records both filings and their disposition, and the [docket mirror](https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2015cv07433/447706) reports that the Apple and Microsoft subpoena motions were granted on June 23, 2016, with leave to renew for Microsoft.
- **What to learn:** The objection follows completed targeted collection: counsel collected the client’s account data, ran search terms, produced responsive material, and prepared a privilege log. It then explains why a demand for an entire account and metadata is overbroad or duplicative and asks for a precise protective-order or quashing remedy. The example shows how to ground a nonparty-subpoena objection in what has already been searched and produced, rather than in abstract burden alone.
- **What not to copy:** This is a sensitive matter and a motion for protective relief, not a universal subpoena-response form. Do not repeat names, underlying allegations, or account-specific facts unnecessarily. Do not assume that the disposition resolves the merits of every objection; use the filing for technique and check current Rule 45, privacy, and proportionality law.

### Zuniga v. Bernalillo County

- **Record:** Maria Zuniga, Emily Hernandez, Jennifer Gallegos, Cassandra Gutierrez, Priscilla Gutierrez, Stephanie Manzanares, Pat Vigil, et al. v. Bernalillo County, Julian Barela, Dan Mayfield, et al., U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, Civ. No. 11-877 RHS-ACT, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, Doc. 70, filed January 10, 2013. The order resolves motions to compel interrogatory and document responses and discusses the parties’ deficiency correspondence and conferences.
- **Source and verification:** The [official GovInfo docket-stamped PDF](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nmd-1_11-cv-00877/pdf/USCOURTS-nmd-1_11-cv-00877-0.pdf) identifies the parties, court, civil number, document number, and filing date. The underlying letters are referenced in the order but are not all reproduced in this public copy.
- **What to learn:** The order explains that exchanging lengthy letters is not, by itself, a good-faith conference; counsel should compare positions, consult about the disputed requests, and narrow what remains. It cautions against filing a motion while agreed supplementation is still pending, records where the County produced material after conferral, and requires detailed future affidavits describing the steps taken. A deficiency letter modeled on this record should identify the request, original response, proposed narrowing or cure, agreed production, and the genuinely unresolved issue.
- **What not to copy:** Do not present this order as the text of the parties’ letters or as a jurisdiction-neutral rule. The court’s local-rule requirements and remedy were specific to that matter. Verify the applicable meet-and-confer rule, standing order, and motion timing before using the lesson.

## Privilege-log dispute

### Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. — settlement-related privilege

- **Record:** Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., S.D.N.Y. No. 1:22-cv-10904-JSR, USVI letter motion concerning “Privilege Waiver Relating to Settlement Discussions,” Doc. 248, filed July 26, 2023, and JPMorgan’s opposition, Doc. 250, filed July 31, 2023. Related Doc. 249 addresses late and incomplete discovery responses and a production timeline.
- **Source and verification:** The [USVI Doc. 248 letter motion](https://www.justice.gov/multimedia/Court%20Records/Government%20of%20the%20United%20States%20Virgin%20Islands%20v.%20JPMorgan%20Chase%20Bank%2C%20N.A.%2C%20No.%20122-cv-10904%20%28S.D.N.Y.%202022%29/248.pdf) identifies the settlement-related privilege-log dispute and the population of withheld documents. The [JPMorgan Doc. 250 opposition](https://www.justice.gov/multimedia/Court%20Records/Government%20of%20the%20United%20States%20Virgin%20Islands%20v.%20JPMorgan%20Chase%20Bank%2C%20N.A.%2C%20No.%20122-cv-10904%20%28S.D.N.Y.%202022%29/250.pdf) presents the opposing reliance-based response. The [related Doc. 249 letter](https://www.justice.gov/multimedia/Court%20Records/Government%20of%20the%20United%20States%20Virgin%20Islands%20v.%20JPMorgan%20Chase%20Bank%2C%20N.A.%2C%20No.%20122-cv-10904%20%28S.D.N.Y.%202022%29/249.pdf) addresses late production and continuing efforts to resolve discovery. These are filed litigation papers in the official DOJ archive; some pages or versions are marked confidential or filed under seal, so verify the public/redacted status before relying on them.
- **What to learn:** The paired papers show both sides of an “at issue” privilege dispute: identify the withheld-document population and log date, connect the asserted privilege to the substantive theory, explain why the opponent says the claim puts advice or settlement communications at issue, and articulate the narrower response that privilege is not waived without reliance on privileged advice. The related discovery letter is useful for documenting cooperation, production chronology, and the specific relief still sought.
- **What not to copy:** Do not generalize the waiver theory or assume that a settlement amount, damages theory, or board process creates an at-issue waiver. Do not expose sealed or sensitive settlement material. Treat each argument as party advocacy and check the governing circuit’s privilege and waiver law, protective order, and any case-specific discovery rulings.

## Suggested curation record

For a reusable internal library, store each item with: case caption; court and jurisdiction; docket and document number; filing date; artifact type; direct source URL; source status (official docket, government archive, or mirror); access/sealing/redaction note; techniques illustrated; and a “do not copy” note. Link to the source and quote only the minimum permitted text; otherwise use a paraphrase and an anonymized synthetic drafting example.