MADISON v. COLQUITT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
DR. WILLIAM LEAMON MADISON,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLQUITT COUNTY SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CASE NO:
7:23-cv-31–WLS
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Implementation of an Electronically Stored
Information (“ESI”) Plan (Doc. 77) (“ESI Motion”), along with a copy of a proposed ESI
Plan (“Doc. 77-4). Defendants filed a response (Doc. 84) opposing the ESI Motion as
unnecessary and overburdensome.1 Defendant proposes that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
34 sets out the procedure and rules for producing ESI and that those procedures as sufficient.
Plaintiff contends the detailed ESI Plan is necessary because his counsel and
Defendants’ counsel had a discovery dispute in a prior unrelated case in which the court
granted a motion for sanctions based, in part, on a finding that “defendant (through the actions
of their counsel) withheld electronically stored information.” (Doc. 77 at 3 (citing Hilton v.
Brooks Cnty. Sch. Dist., No. 7:20-cv-227, 2022 WL 4657701 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2022)). The
Hilton court found the appropriate remedy was to order defendant to conduct a new ESI
search of defendant’s relevant electronic devices by using an ESI vendor to run the search and
1 As Defendant notes, Plaintiff proposes the “Court to enter his 12-page order governing the process and
production of ESI, including, requirements as to which specific devices need to be searched, specific search
terms to retrieve documents, specific format of production, preservation of metadata, specific extraction of 42
separate metadata components, specific required designation(s) of production.” (Doc. 84 at 2). Further, Plaintiff
seeks an “order with certain mandates or requirements or specifications on ESI production concerning:
‘document format,’ how to handle ‘hard copy documents,’ a specific procedure for ‘de-duplication,’ ‘bates-
numbering,’ specific narrow requirements [ ] for ‘text searchable documents,’ specific requirements for ‘native
files,’ and metadata production. (Id. at 4).
Case 7:23-cv-00031-WLS-ALS Document 86 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 2

2
requiring the vendor to work with plaintiff’s counsel to ensure proper search terms were used.
(Doc. 77-1 at 11).
As Defendant argues, the prior case is irrelevant to the facts and issues that might arise
in this case. The scheduling/discovery order (Doc. 76) in this case was entered on October 2,
2025, with a discovery deadline of March 30, 2026. To date, according to Defendant, Plaintiff
has not served any requests for production of documents on Defendant. Her contention that
Defendant will not properly comply with discovery rules upon the Record in this case is
speculative at best. Other than speculation upon minimal, if any, actual discovery, Plaintiff
offers no reason why the ESI procedures set forth in Rule 34 are insufficient, and the Court
declines to impose an overburdensome ESI process on Defendant based solely on Plaintiff’s
speculations. Reference to discovery in an unrelated case based on a distinguishable actual
record is insufficient upon the Record in this case.
Accordingly, 	Plaintiff’s Motion 	for 	Implementation 	of 	an 	Electronically 	Stored
Information (“ESI”) Plan (Doc. 77) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED, this 8th day of January 2026.
/s/ W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 7:23-cv-00031-WLS-ALS Document 86 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 2