Generally, the party producing discovery bears the costs of production. But, shifting to the non-producing party the costs of production is sometimes warranted. This issue was recently tackled by a Kansas District Court in the matter Lawson v. Spirit AeroSystems, 2020 WL 3288058 (D. Kan. June 18, 2020).
Background
Following his retirement from Spirit
Rule 26(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, when a party withholds information otherwise discoverable by claiming the information is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material, the party must:
(i) expressly make the claim; and
(ii) describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed—
Aldinger v. Alden State Bank is a good reminder of counsel’s obligation to be cooperative in the discovery process.
Aldinger, an employment discrimination case pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, involved a series of discovery disputes including Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to respond to her First
The issue of production format when dealing with ESI is often the subject of discussion and disagreement. If possible, the parties to the litigation should agree at the outset to the production format. In fact, a conversation about production format, metadata and redactions (among other things) should occur at the preliminary conference and/or the Rule
Often viewed as a necessary evil, the Rule 26(f) conference can serve as an invaluable opportunity to meaningfully discuss discovery such that the process is streamlined and seeks to avoid unnecessary (and often costly) disputes. Generally speaking, Rule 26(f), among other things, sets the deadline for the conference as soon as practicable and at least
In Youngevity Intl’s Corp. v. Smith (No: 16-cv-00704 [SD CA December 21, 2017]), defendants sought an Order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(g) and 37. The Order required Plaintiffs to remediate an improper discovery production to pay for Defendants’ costs for bringing the motion to compel and for the cost to review
Electronic discovery (a/k/a ediscovery and e-discovery) is the process of identifying, preserving, collecting, preparing, reviewing and producing electronically stored information (“ESI”) in the context of a legal or investigative process. In order that counsel may bring discovery issues (including e-discovery issues) to the forefront early on in the development of a case, the Federal Rules
In Fulton v. Livingston Financial LLC, 2016 WL 3976558 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2016), U.S. District Judge James L. Robart sanctioned a defense lawyer who “inexcusabl[y]” relied on outdated case law and pre-2015 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) in motion practice before the court.
On April 13, 2015, Plaintiff (Richard Fulton)
Armstrong Pump, Inc. v. Hartman, No. 10-CV-446S, 2016 WL 7208753 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2016)
In this case, pending before the Court was a motion by Armstrong Pump Inc. (“Armstrong”) to compel formal production of certain documents that defendant Optimum Energy LLC (“Optimum”) considered the functional equivalent of its proprietary source code. This “formal production” Armstrong
It is the beginning of a new year and I thought it the ideal time to list out those steps that are absolutely critical when an attorney is confronting his/her obligation to produce e-discovery in connection with a litigation. Bear in mind, the below list is not exhaustive and each step is replete with technical