Discovery, though often complex in execution, is conceptually straightforward. Parties request from their adversaries materials that are within the permissible scope of discovery; responding parties may then object or proceed with efforts to collect, review and produce the materials. If the requesting parties are dissatisfied with the production, they can work directly with the responding party to address their concerns, or bring motions to the court.

A recent matter in the Northern District of Illinois, however, found this process turned on its head. Instead of submitting a request for production of certain materials, the requesting party asked to directly access the responding parties’ systems through forensic examination. The court ultimately denied this request, finding it was not proportional to the needs of the case.

‘Tireboots v. Tiresocks’

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]