It is not often that courts write full opinions concerning discovery disputes. The simple, and perhaps obvious, reason is that most disputes are resolved through informal discussion and good-faith interaction, as contemplated by both the federal and local rules of civil procedure. Since the introduction of e-discovery rules and, more recently, the relevance and proportionality rules, we are seeing more written opinions concerning discovery.
Some federal judges have even gone so far as to develop specific procedures governing e-discovery. An example from the online procedures of some of the district judges in the Eastern District requires the parties to conduct an e-discovery conference, designate an e-discovery liaison and a retention coordinator, develop a search methodology and identify privileged information. The idea behind such rules is to eliminate disputes that may arise during discovery.
This content has been archived.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]
