Proposed discovery amendments could make cases more challenging for plaintiffs
The committee has suggested that sanctions should only be imposed in situations where plaintiffs were able to prove that information was removed or deleted intentionally, as a direct result of litigation.
November 14, 2013 at 06:27 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Plaintiffs bringing cases against large corporations already have what many would consider an uphill battle. Generally bereft of the kind of spending power the corporate defendant has, plaintiffs rely on current discovery laws that require extensive surrender of information to build a case. However, with advent of digital information storage, the discovery process has ballooned in cost.
While new proposals to civil court procedure may help control costs for defendants, they could also result in more challenges for plaintiffs trying to exact justice from their deep-pocketed opponents.
The rules, which were proposed in June of 2013 by an advisory committee, correspond to a number of provisions surrounding the discovery process. They would limit the number of interrogatories permitted to 15, set a sanctions standard for e-discovery violations and emphasize the amount of discovery activity generated by either side.
The proposed rules are designed to to prevent a minority of cases in which “discovery runs out of proportion in a worrisome number of cases, particularly those that are complex, involve high stakes, and generate particularly contentious adversary behavior.”
The committee has suggested that sanctions should only be imposed in situations where plaintiffs were able to prove that information was removed or deleted intentionally, as a direct result of litigation. They argue that the responsibility of curating large troves of electronic data is cumbersome and expensive for defendants, many of whom create and store terabytes of information on a daily basis.
As plaintiffs have pointed out, having a limited number of interrogatories, in conjunction with softened sanctions against spoliation, makes it much more difficult for them to build a case. Since plaintiffs often do not have a full grasp of defendant's data storage methods at the onset of the case, having the ability to request less information makes it more difficult for them to get what they need to make a case.
While the rules are not expected to go into effect until February, they currently sound like a win for the budgets of corporations and a loss for legitimate cases brought by plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs bringing cases against large corporations already have what many would consider an uphill battle. Generally bereft of the kind of spending power the corporate defendant has, plaintiffs rely on current discovery laws that require extensive surrender of information to build a case. However, with advent of digital information storage, the discovery process has ballooned in cost.
While new proposals to civil court procedure may help control costs for defendants, they could also result in more challenges for plaintiffs trying to exact justice from their deep-pocketed opponents.
The rules, which were proposed in June of 2013 by an advisory committee, correspond to a number of provisions surrounding the discovery process. They would limit the number of interrogatories permitted to 15, set a sanctions standard for e-discovery violations and emphasize the amount of discovery activity generated by either side.
The proposed rules are designed to to prevent a minority of cases in which “discovery runs out of proportion in a worrisome number of cases, particularly those that are complex, involve high stakes, and generate particularly contentious adversary behavior.”
The committee has suggested that sanctions should only be imposed in situations where plaintiffs were able to prove that information was removed or deleted intentionally, as a direct result of litigation. They argue that the responsibility of curating large troves of electronic data is cumbersome and expensive for defendants, many of whom create and store terabytes of information on a daily basis.
As plaintiffs have pointed out, having a limited number of interrogatories, in conjunction with softened sanctions against spoliation, makes it much more difficult for them to build a case. Since plaintiffs often do not have a full grasp of defendant's data storage methods at the onset of the case, having the ability to request less information makes it more difficult for them to get what they need to make a case.
While the rules are not expected to go into effect until February, they currently sound like a win for the budgets of corporations and a loss for legitimate cases brought by plaintiffs.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAlabama Man Arrested After Causing Bitcoin Price to Surge, Then Plummet After Fake SEC Tweet
3 minute readHunter Biden Sues Fox, Ex-Chief Legal Officer Over Mock Trial Series
Judge Sides With McDonald's In Attorney-Client Privilege Dispute With Former Executives
4 minute readMarriott's $52M Data Breach Settlement Points to Emerging Trend
Trending Stories
- 1A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
- 2A RICO Surge Is Underway: Here's How the Allstate Push Might Play Out
- 3The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 4Data-Driven Legal Strategies
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250