Courts should order more cost-shifting in discovery. In particular, in the rare cases where courts allow discovery on discovery (i.e., how the opponent preserved, collected and produced responsive documents), it should be presumed that the requester pays for the responding party’s costs to produce this information.
As U.S. Magistrate Judge John Facciola noted more than 10 years ago in McPeek v. Ashcroft (D.C 2001):
This content has been archived.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
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]
