Iea Constructors Llc And Infrastructure And Energy Alternatives Inc V

Key Facts

Transaction Type

Issues

• Whether defendant violated the parties' agreement regarding inadvertent production of privileged material by failing to return or destroy the draft email within five days after plaintiff invoked the clawback provision
• Whether court should grant defendant's counsel's motion for excused absence for family events in April and maternity leave from May through August 2026
• Whether defendant must supplement responses to Requests for Production Nos. 23-27 to formalize representations that responsive documents were produced, despite discovery period having closed

Holdings

• Defendant's counsel's motion for excused absence for family events in April and maternity leave from May through August is granted.
• Defendant is ordered to supplement responses to Requests for Production Nos. 23-27 to formalize their representations and verify them under oath, due April 3, 2026. This portion of the motion to compel is otherwise denied.
• Plaintiffs' motion to compel (Dkt. 75) is granted in part and denied in part. The court orders defendant to supplement responses to Requests for Production Nos. 23-27 to formalize representations and verify them under oath, due April 3, 2026. Defendant's counsel's motion for excused absence (Dkt. 80) is granted.

Remedies

• The court ordered that each party bears their own costs on the motions filed in this case, including the motion to compel and the motion for excused absence.
• The court granted plaintiffs' motion to compel in part, ordering defendant to supplement their responses to Requests for Production Nos. 23-27 to formalize their representations and verify them under oath. The supplement is due April 3, 2026. The court denied the motion in part, finding it too late to compel more specific identification of documents given the advanced stage of discovery. Additionally, the court granted defendant's counsel's motion for excused absence and ordered each party to bear their own costs on the motions.
• The court granted defendant's lead counsel's motion for excused absence for family events in April and maternity leave expected to run from May through August. The court noted that the case schedule already accounts for these absences and expects the trial team to cover lead counsel's absence. The court also ordered each party to bear their own costs on the motions.

Legal Principles

• The court held that when parties enter into a confidentiality agreement governing inadvertent production of privileged material, that agreement controls over default rules like Fed. R. Evid. 502. The agreement required the receiving party to either return/destroy material or raise issues with court within five days. Defendant violated this agreement by neither returning the material nor raising the issue within the deadline, thus warranting enforcement of the claw back provision.
• The court granted plaintiffs' motion to compel defendant to supplement responses to Requests for Production Nos. 23-27 to formalize representations that responsive documents were produced. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(E) governs document production, requiring parties to produce documents as kept in usual course of business or organized to correspond to request categories. The court denied the motion for specific identification because discovery had closed and plaintiffs had tools to search electronic documents.

Precedent Name

Key Disputed Contract Clauses

Cited Statute

• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
• Federal Rules of Evidence

Judge Name

• Judge Peterson
• Anita Marie Boor

Passage Text

• The receiving party must either return and destroy the material as requested or raise the issue with the court—one or the other within five days of the claw back notice. Defendant apparently did neither of these things. It did not return or destroy the material as requested. Nor did it raise the issue with the court, within five days of plaintiffs invoking the claw back provision or ever. Rather, it took no action at all. Defendant confusingly claims that it 'did the latter,' Dkt. 79 at 15, but this issue is before the court on plaintiffs' motion, not defendant's.
• Because plaintiffs and the court now have relied on these representations, they should be formalized for possible use at trial. For this reason, defendant is ORDERED to supplement their responses to Requests for Production Nos. 23-27 to formalize their representations and to verify them under oath. Whether and how this information could be used at trial is a question for another day, to be decided by Judge Peterson. The supplement is due April 3, 2026. This portion of the motion is otherwise DENIED.
• This court ordinarily does not formally grant leaves of absence. When an attorney is counsel of record, the court expects the attorney to attend to the deadlines and make arrangements to have them covered if the attorney expects other obligations, either personal or professional, to present a conflict. Here, the court has worked extensively with the parties to craft a case schedule that takes these particular absences into account. That is why trial moved, Dkt. 48, and there are 'no maters presently scheduled in court during' the dates listed in counsel's motion, Dkt. 80.