In class action and complex cases, the discovery process is essential for getting documents to support the case, survive summary judgment, and, ultimately, prosecute the case. The documents, key witnesses, and information needed are largely in defendants' possession, custody, or control, and, without the ability to access them, plaintiffs' claims face dismissal. The "meet and confer" requirement in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was added in 2006 to expedite the resolution of disputes that can arise during this process. The unfortunate reality, however, is that rather than expedite the dispute resolution process, it has, instead, become a Trojan horse for delay. Indeed, while many rule changes have unintended consequences, the flip from help to hindrance here has been nothing short of breathtaking and disappointing, in equal measure. The never-ending "we'll take it back to our client" drumbeat of defense counsel almost always translates to: "We're going to need two more weeks before we even tell you if we were able to contact our client."

For instance, Rule 34 provides for an unlimited number of document requests to ensure that plaintiffs can craft and serve as many requests as necessary to obtain crucial discovery. And most importantly, these documents provide broad insight into defendants' wrongful conduct. But, quite often, defendants take unreasonable positions in their written responses, such as unfairly limiting what they're agreeing to produce, or obtusely objecting to common terms as ambiguous, such that they cannot possibly respond. Defendants still even unilaterally respond with boilerplate objections across the board—a clear violation of amended Rule 34.