04 Sunday Nov 2018
Posted in Discovery, Motion to Compel
6 Keys to Acing Discovery, by Katherine A. Hopkins, ABA Journal
Best advice in this well-written post? Know the case law in your Motion to Compel, know the court rules and follow them to the letter, and make it easy for the judge. -CCE
20 Saturday Aug 2016
I admit it. I love writing and answering discovery. Too often, I have seen boilerplate discovery asking for something that is not relevant. What a waste. Do not write discovery if you know nothing about the case. Blindly sending boilerplate discovery at best makes you look busy. At worst, it makes you look sloppy.
Discovery rules change. Read and re-read the court rules, local court rules, and the applicable discovery code. At the outset of the case, send your client and the opposing party a litigation hold letter. It does not matter whether either is an individual or a big corporation. Everyone uses email and sends texts on their cell phones.
Before you start writing discovery, you have to be familiar with the facts and law of your client’s case. If you aren’t, read the pleadings. Understand why the plaintiff sued the defendant(s) and what answer the defendant gave to those allegations, including all affirmative defenses. If it helps, make a chart or an outline.
There is a basic way to determine what discovery you should request. First, make a list of what you need to prove your case. We’ll call this List #1. Second, ask yourself whether you have everything needed to prove (or defend) everything on List #1? You won’t. So, third, make a list of what you need – List #2. Your client will provide some of the evidence you need, and you will use discovery to continue your search. Revise List #2 to identify what you need but do not have.
With List #2 as your guide, use discovery to get whatever else you need to prove your case. Each type of discovery is unique. Play to their strengths, which is a post all by itself. Craft your discovery to snag that evidence and identify anyone who is a potential witness and/or document custodian.
A quick word about Definitions and Instructions. Please do not regurgitate the discovery rules. I admit that I do not follow my own advice. I like to remind opposing counsel (and the opposing party) that there is a continuing obligation to supplement discovery. In the hopes that it will save time and aggravation, I also like to add the specific language from the discovery code about when you can object and why.
Define only what is necessary. If there is room for confusion, clarify what is what and who is whom. If the case revolves around specific documents, such as a contract or an event, define it with a simple designation. Your goal is instant recognition of whatever it is. If there are more than one contract or event, make your definitions basic and easy to recognize.
As soon as you receive the responses to your discovery, mark every incomplete answer or objection. Ask for supplementation where needed, and follow up. If an objection is ridiculous or simply obstructive, challenge it while at the same time building exhibits to support a motion to compel (read the rules!). Do not wait until the discovery deadline is looming to stay on top of this.
This one should be a no-brainer, but I still see it every so often. A party objects to the most basic discovery question and refuses to answer. The other side asks a standard, basic interrogatory, and you object. Really? You cannot enforce it. You know it; I know it; and the other side knows it.
Say goodbye to your boilerplate forms. If you use a form, proofread. Know your case. Adapt your discovery plan as the case progresses. These are not all the basics, but it will hopefully give you a running start. -CCE
10 Monday Aug 2015
Posted in Attorney Work Product, Attorney-Client Privilege, Discovery, Federal Rules of Discovery, Privilege and Confidentiality, Privilege Log, Requests for Production
≈ Comments Off on 2,941 Page Privilege Log? Better Make It Good.
Tags
Attorney-Client Privilege, Discovery, Doug Austin, eDiscoveryDaily Blog, Motion to Compel, Privilege Logs
If You’re Going to Submit a 2,941 Page Privilege Log, You’d Better Be Able to Demonstrate Privilege: eDiscovery Case Law, by Doug Austin, eDiscoverydaily Blog
The last post by Mr. Gilliland is an excellent illustration of the rule for privilege logs. This example? Well, you be the judge. -CCE
In United States v. Louisiana, 11-470-JWD-RLB. (M.D. La. July 31, 2015), Louisiana Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr., after reviewing 40 documents provided by the defendant for in-camera review, granted the plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Compel a Proper Privilege Log, after denying the original motion because the plaintiff only provided 13 examples of ‘insufficient descriptions’ within the privilege log’s entries. . . .
19 Tuesday May 2015
Posted in Discovery, E-Discovery, Preservation, Sanctions
≈ Comments Off on Angry Judge Sanctions Defendants For E-Discovery Spoilation.
Tags
Data Preservation, Discovery, Doug Austin, E-Discovery, e-Discoverydaily Blog, Motion to Compel, Spoilation
Tired of the “Crap”, Court Sanctions Investors and Lawyers for Several Instances of Spoliation, by Doug Austin, eDiscoverydaily Blog
In Clear-View Technologies, Inc., v. Rasnick et al, 5:13-cv-02744-BLF (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2015), California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal sanctioned the defendants $212,320 and also granted a permissive adverse jury instruction that allows the presumption that the defendants’ spoliated documents due to a series of ‘transgressions’ by the defendants and their prior counsel.
You’ve got to love an order that begins this way:
‘Deployment of ‘Crap Cleaner’ software—with a motion to compel pending. Lost media with relevant documents. False certification that document production was complete. Failure to take any steps to preserve or collect relevant documents for two years after discussing this very suit. Any one of these transgressions by {the defendants} and their prior counsel might justify sanctions. Taken together, there can be no doubt.’ . . .
24 Wednesday Dec 2014
Posted in Breach, Contract Law, Discovery, E-Discovery, Litigation, Motion to Compel, Requests for Production
≈ Comments Off on Shocking! A Court Frustrated by Parties’ E-Discovery Tactics.
E=Frustrated Court Crafts ‘New and Simpler Approach to Discovery,’ Identifies Search Terms to be Utilized by Plaintiff, posted in Case Summaries by K&L Gates
Armstrong Pump, Inc. v. Hartman, No. 10-CV-446S, 2014 WL 6908867 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2014)
In this breach of contract case, the court granted in part Defendant’s motion to compel and, in light of Plaintiff’s piecemeal production (which the court had earlier cautioned against) and other discovery failures, fashioned a ‘new and simpler approach’ to discovery, including the identification of 13 search terms/phrases to be utilized when searching ‘ALL [of Plaintiff’s] corporate documents, files, communications, and recordings. . .’ The court also ordered the plaintiff and all counsel of record to file a sworn statement confirming its ‘good-faith effort to identify sources of documents; that a complete search of those sources for each of the [identified] phrases occurred; and that the search results [were] furnished to [Defendant].’
Discovery in this case was contentious and resulted in at least one prior motion to compel, which the court granted in favor of the defendant. At that time, the court warned the plaintiff ‘not to engage in piecemeal production of materials it has located that are responsive to Optimum Energy’s unobjectionable requests.’ Plaintiff subsequently produced documents on nine separate occasions.
Following the prior motion to compel, Defendant also learned, for the first time, of a ‘five-step development process,’ that it believed was highly relevant to its claims, and which caused it to believe that the plaintiff was withholding documents from production. Accordingly, Defendant filed a second motion to compel and sought sanctions for Plaintiff’s discovery behavior, including its delayed production of relevant information.
Taking up the motion, the court expressed its frustration with ‘the continual and growing animosity between the parties, an animosity that has slowed the progress of the case and that has required repeated judicial intervention.’ The court also noted that despite the bickering between parties, neither had ever filed a motion for a protective order ‘[n]or ha[d] any party foregone passive-aggressive snarking and filed a formal motion under Rule 11 or 28 U.S.C. § 1927 to complain about material misrepresentations in motion papers.’ ‘Instead,’ the court continued, ‘the parties would prefer that the Court forget what the actual claims are in this case and start obsessing over details . . . .’
08 Saturday Nov 2014
Posted in Discovery, E-Discovery, Intellectual Property, Motion to Compel, Patent Law, Requests for Production
≈ Comments Off on To Decide Motion To Compel, Court Asks Whether Discovery Was “Fair.”
Considering Motion to Compel, Court Asks Whether Discovery Responses Have Been “Fair,” by K&L Gates
Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., No. 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, 2014 WL 5321095 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014)
In this patent infringement case, Defendant objected to ‘producing custodial email from archival systems when [the Plaintiff] is not able to do the same in return.’ Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. In assessing the motion, the court recognized potential limitations on discovery, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). The court indicated that, ‘[r]educed to its essence, Rule 26(b)(2)(iii) [sic] requires this court to decide: have Blue Coat’s discovery responses been fair?’ In response, the court concluded that the defendant’s responses had ‘largely been fair, but not entirely.’ Turning specifically to the question of custodial emails, the court reasoned:
Where Blue Coat has been less than fair is with respect to archival email for its eight custodians. Blue Coat may largely be in the right that it should not have to dig through legacy systems when Finjan is unable to the same for its custodians. But one party’s discovery shortcomings are rarely enough to justify another’s. And here, at least with respect to documents mentioning Finjan—the one specific category of documents Finjan could identify that it needed from archived email—Finjan’s request is reasonable.
A full copy of the court’s opinion is available here.
24 Saturday May 2014
Posted in Admissibility, Authentication, Depositions, Discovery, Evidence, Federal Rules of Discovery, Federal Rules of Evidence, Interrogatories, Relevance, Requests for Admissions, Requests for Production, Sanctions, Subpoena Duces Tecum, Trial Tips and Techniques
≈ Comments Off on When Discovery Becomes Less About The Merits of the Case And More About Obstruction.
Tags
Boilerplate Objections, Discovery, Litigation and Trial Blog, Matthew Jarvey, Max Kennerly, Meet and Confer, Motion to Compel, Requests for Admission
Boilerplate Objections And “Good Faith” Requirements Are Ruining Civil Discovery, by Max Kennerly, Esq., Litigation and Trial Blog
Please make sure to catch the reference and link to: Matthew Jarvey, “Boilerplate Discovery Objections,” 61 Drake L. Rev. 913 (2013). -CCE
‘If there is a hell to which disputatious, uncivil, vituperative lawyers go, let it be one in which the damned are eternally locked in discovery disputes with other lawyers of equally repugnant attributes.’ Dahl v. City of Huntington Beach, 84 F.3d 363, 364 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Krueger v. Pelican Prod. Corp., No. CIV-87-2385-A (W.D. Okla. Feb. 24, 1989). . . .
