Patricia E Antezana

October 24, 2024 | The Legal Intelligencer

Can both plaintiffs and defendants—opposing parties in an adversarial system—ascribe the same meaning to "reasonableness" to cooperate in discovery? Is it reasonable to believe that adversarial parties are likely to reach an agreement as to what is "reasonable" in discovery? The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure answer with a resounding "yes."

By Patricia E. Antezana

7 minute read

May 30, 2024 | The Legal Intelligencer

Recently, in Citizens Business Bank v. Mission Bank, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied the plaintiff's motion to compel a forensic examination of certain electronic devices, accounts, and backup servers maintained by the defendant and the defendant's employees.

By Patricia E. Antezana

8 minute read

January 12, 2024 | The Legal Intelligencer

While generative AI tools should be researched, studied, and ultimately embraced if proven for their ability to assist lawyers with legal tasks, they first must be properly and accurately trained, tested, and verified.

By Patricia E. Antezana

7 minute read

October 31, 2023 | The Legal Intelligencer

One mechanism that courts can use to limit discovery is Federal Rule 26(b)(2)(C). Rule 26(b)(2)(C) instructs that a court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery if it determines that: "the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1)."

By Patricia E. Antezana

7 minute read

June 01, 2023 | The Legal Intelligencer

More than seven years after the 2015 amendments to the permissible scope of discovery in Rule 26(b), parties continue to struggle with drafting reasonable and proportional discovery.

By Patricia E. Antezana

7 minute read

October 27, 2008 | National Law Journal

The U.S. Supreme Court changed the landscape for motions to dismiss when it decided Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, (2007). The court declared that, to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must "raise a right to relief above the speculative level" and "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." The Supreme Court labeled the new standard the "plausibility standard." But how have courts across the country interpreted the "plausibility standard"?

By Mary J. Hackett and Patricia E. Antezana / Special to The National Law Journal

10 minute read