Remove Discovery Remove Litigation Remove Objections
article thumbnail

Discovery 101 – Court Sets Out Ground Rules to Resolve Discovery Dispute

E-Discovery LLC

clearly sets out a series of rules governing discovery disputes. At a status conference, each party asserted that the other had not adequately responded to discovery requests. 5] “The rules also require objections to interrogatories and requests for production of documents to be made with specificity.” [6] 21, 2025)(Stafford, J.),

article thumbnail

Request for “Discovery on Discovery” Was Overbroad; Uber Deponent Was Ordered to Bring Uber Laptop to Deposition; Discovery About Uber Information Governance Training Resolved

E-Discovery LLC

Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation , 2025 WL 1393216 (N.D. May 14, 2025), the court resolved discovery disputes over a corporate designee deposition under Fed.R.Civ.P. DISCOVERY ABOUT DISCOVERY Plaintiffs sought testimony about Uber’s recordkeeping practices. In In Re: Uber Technologies, Inc.,

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Decision on How to Best Search for ESI – Court Orders ESI Protocol in “Epic of Dysfunctional Discovery,” With Unique Clawback Provision

E-Discovery LLC

In a case where the plaintiff seeks $24,000,000 in damages, the court stated: “Today we write the next chapter in this litigation, a case which threatens to become an epic of dysfunctional discovery…. The parties have long been embroiled in contentious discovery disputes.” Everlast Roofing , Inc. Wilson , 2025 WL 1959345 (M.D.

article thumbnail

Protective Order Barring Use of Discovery Materials in Other Litigation Was Vacated

E-Discovery LLC

A protective order barring post-settlement use by plaintiffs’ counsel of defendant’s discovery responses in other litigation was vacated in Cordero v. The Ninth Circuit wrote: It is “well-established” in our case law that discovery is “presumptively public.” Stemilt AG Services, LLC, __ F. 4 th __, 2025 WL 1902292 (9 th Cir.

article thumbnail

Local Rule Prohibiting Definitions in Interrogatories Without Leave of Court

E-Discovery LLC

Plaintiff Payne moved to compel discovery from Defendant Herman. In pertinent part, Herman objected to the definitions in Payne’s interrogatories. The Maryland Court published “Guidelines for Uniform Instructions and Definitions for Use in Discovery Requests.” 23, 2025), involved allegations of malicious prosecution.

article thumbnail

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(g) Was Violated by Permitting Client Searches With Minimal Oversight by Counsel

E-Discovery LLC

The court held that: To satisfy the requirements of Rule 26(g)(1) and comply with counsel’s ethical obligations as an officer of the Court, counsel must be actively involved in searching and producing discovery to Plaintiff. Rule 26(g) explains the meaning of counsel’s signature on discovery responses. Lewis and Zappala.

article thumbnail

Court’s Use of a Special Master to Assist EEOC in Obtaining Discovery from Defendant

E-Discovery LLC

18, 2025) (“ Genesh IV ”), after several rulings adverse to Genesh, the court appointed a Special Master to facilitate the plaintiff EEOC’s discovery from the defendant , Genesh, Inc. A substantial amount of discovery took place before Ms. Genesh, Inc., 24-2445-DDC-ADM (D. 2000e-5(f)(1); however, Genesh asserted that Ms. Genesh, Inc.,