Cahoo v. SAS Analytics Inc.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT FAST'S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA

          DAVID M. LAWSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Defendant FAST Enterprises, LLC served a subpoena on November 19, 2018 on the State of Michigan for eight categories of documents that are relevant to the plaintiffs' claims in this case. Having received very little in response, FAST filed the present motion to compel production of the documents. The Court heard oral argument on August 29, 2019 and ruled from the bench that prompt production of documents is required.

         The subpoena was directed to “the State of Michigan, ” although the focus of many of the requests is on the Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency (UIA), a department of the State whose employees are defendants in this case. The subpoena sought production of documents responsive to the following eight categories:

1. All Communications and Documents from the Microsoft Outlook/Exchange accounts of any FAST, CSG, or SAS employee who was given a Michigan.gov email address;

2. All files (including Communications and Documents) from the local hard drives (or images thereof) of any State of Michigan computers given to any FAST, CSG, or SAS employee to use for purposes of the Project;

3. All files (including Communications and Documents) located on the Project Sharepoint sites;

4. All files (including Communications and Documents) located in the SQR, SQT, SQD and FCR databases for the Project;

5. All Communications and Documents related to the Project which are located on any Agency shared drives (this request specifically excludes all data within the MiDAS system);

6. All Communications and Documents from Microsoft Outlook/Exchange, the local hard drives, and the personal records and files of any State of Michigan employee which are related to the Project, including:

a. All Communications and Documents related to the Agency's Request for Proposals for the Project, including all responses received;

b. All Communications and Documents related to the Agency's decision to implement auto-adjudication;

c. All Communications and Documents related to the Agency's development of requirements and parameters for the Project, including the non-monetary determinations aspects of the Project;

d. All Communications and Documents related to the Agency's hiring of Defendants SAS Institute Inc., FAST Enterprises, LLC, and CSG Government Solutions (the “Corporate Defendants”);

e. All Communications and Documents related to the respective roles of each of the Corporate Defendants and the ...