Archive: October 23, 2008

1
Court Highlights Cooperation Requirements of Discovery under Rule 26, Rules Objections Waived for Failure to Be Specific, and Orders Meet and Confer to Resolve Remaining Disputes
2
To “Expedite the Flow of Discovery and Facilitate Prompt Resolution of Disputes”, Court Adopts Proposed Order Governing Electronic Discovery

Court Highlights Cooperation Requirements of Discovery under Rule 26, Rules Objections Waived for Failure to Be Specific, and Orders Meet and Confer to Resolve Remaining Disputes

Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs. Co., 253 F.R.D. 354 (D. Md. 2008)

In this employment case, plaintiffs filed several motions to compel supplemental responses to their extensive discovery requests after defendants allegedly failed to adequately respond.  The case was eventually referred to Chief United States Magistrate Judge Paul Grimm for the purpose of resolving all of the discovery disputes.

In the initial review of defendants’ objections to the requests, the court noted “an obvious violation” of Federal Rule 33(b)(4) and “facially apparent violations” of Federal Rule 33(b)(2) which require that objections to interrogatories and requests for production be laid out with specificity or else they are waived.  Moreover, the court suggested that the defendants’ failure to be particular in their objections “suggested a probable violation” of Federal Rule 26(g)(1) which requires a reasonable inquiry prior to objecting to an interrogatory or document request.  Accordingly, the court scheduled a hearing to address the issues.

Read More

To “Expedite the Flow of Discovery and Facilitate Prompt Resolution of Disputes”, Court Adopts Proposed Order Governing Electronic Discovery

Star, Inc. v. QFA Royalties LLC, No. 07-cv-02223-WYD-CBS (D. Colo. Filed Oct. 10, 2007)

In this case, the court granted an unopposed motion of the defendant to enter an order governing electronic discovery.  The proposed order adopted by the court was intended to “expedite the flow of discovery material and facilitate prompt resolution of disputes over production of electronic materials…”  Included in the order was a provision requiring each party to identify an “e-discovery liaison” through whom all discovery requests and responses would be made as well as provisions providing instruction regarding search methodology, timing of discovery, format of production, privilege review, document retention and costs.

A copy of the motion and proposed order is available here.

A copy of the court’s order is available here.
 

Copyright © 2018, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.