Key Discovery Points: Do Your Best to Avoid Discovery Shenanigans!
eDiscovery Case Law Podcast: How Failing to Meet and Confer Effectively Can Lead to Sanctions
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 305: Spotlight on Civil Procedure (Part 2 – Discovery)
The common-interest doctrine sometimes protects as privileged communications between separately represented clients sharing an identical legal interest in ongoing or anticipated litigation. It differs dramatically from a...more
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(g) is called the “stop and think” rule. In Grullon v. Lewis, 2025 WL 1693425 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 17, 2025), the court found a violation of that rule....more
The Northern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce test results referenced in its initial disclosures and complaint. The court found that because the “test results are not facts but rather are...more
Every week, the Array team reviews the latest news and analysis about the evolving field of eDiscovery to bring you the topics and trends you need to know. This week’s post covers the period of June 8-14. Here’s what’s...more
In Gilbane Bldg. Co. v. School Bd. of Broward County, 2025 WL 1615553 (S.D. Fl. Jun 6, 2025), plaintiff moved to compel a “compliant” privilege log. The court decided six issues. The court wrote: “I agree that Defendant...more
I have said it before. I will say it again. The biggest mistake you can make for your business is choosing #biglaw to represent you in a TCPA class action. These guys keep getting smoked. Over and over again. Here is the...more
California courts take seriously their rules against gamesmanship in pretrial discovery – as one lawyer recently learned. A stiff sanction, nearly $10,000, was the price he paid for refusing to turn on his laptop’s webcam,...more
In EEOC v. Mia Aesthetics Clinic ATL, LLC, No. 1:24-CV-3407-MLB-AWH (N.D. Ga. May 30, 2025), the EEOC prevailed on several discovery disputes. It prevailed because its attorneys did their homework and supported their...more
In Liberty Corporate Capital Limited v. Gallagher Re, Inc., Case No. 8:25-MC-10-MSS-TGW (M.D. Fla. April 24, 2025), Liberty sought to enforce a subpoena issued by the arbitration panel in a reinsurance dispute to Gallagher,...more
In Abrego-Garcia v. Noem, __ F.R.D. ___, 2025 WL 1166402 (D. Md. Apr. 22, 2025)(Xinis, J.), plaintiffs notified the Court of “seemingly intractable discovery disputes….” The case is before the District Court after the United...more
Collecting evidence in litigation is critical to building a strong case, but it can be tricky – especially when opposing counsel raises objections. When subpoenaing records from a third-party witness, disputes often arise...more
In Pincus Law Grp PLLC v. MJ Connections, Inc., 2025 WL 1070384 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2025), the court ruled in favor of a discovering party and ordered reproduction of previously-produced documents under the terms of an ESI...more
Recent amendments to the federal rules governing pretrial discovery encourage courts to be more aggressive in squelching wasteful discovery practices. Litigators should be mindful that judges are increasingly taking the rules...more
Magistrate Judge Scott Hardy delivers a masterclass on what the meet-and-confer requirement really means in federal litigation—and the serious consequences of failing to cooperate in discovery. In this riveting breakdown of...more
In litigation, especially in dealing with E-Discovery, the importance of an effective electronically stored information agreement (“ESI Agreement”) between the parties is a must to help prevent discovery disputes. This is...more
If you’ve been around the ediscovery space long enough, you’ve likely heard the term “drive-by meet and confer.” It’s what happens when counsel shows up to a Rule 26(f) conference unprepared, without the necessary knowledge...more
The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest...more
[Editor’s Note: This article was first published September 25, 2024, and EDRM is grateful to Tom Paskowitz and Robert Keeling of our Trusted Partner, Sidley, for permission to republish. The opinions and positions are those...more
[Editor’s Note: This article was first published April 17, 2024 and EDRM is grateful to Tom Paskowitz and Robert Keeling of our Trusted Partner, Sidley, for permission to republish. The opinions and positions are those of the...more
This week, we’re delving into the post-2015 landscape of discovery objections and the critical lessons from Bocock v. Innovate Corp., a case that serves as a stark reminder of the perils of general objections and the...more
That is what makes the recent decision in M1 Holdings, Inc. v. Members 1st Fed. Credit Union, 2024 WL 182220 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 17, 2024), interesting. Both of the disputing litigants were ordered to state under oath that they...more
In Ansur America Insurance Co. v. Borland, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois addressed a discovery dispute involving claims brought by Ansur America Insurance Co. against the law firm Ansur...more
The Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up for October 2023 covers three decisions addressing the scope of the work-product and attorney-client privileges, limits on the use of a defendant’s use of its own patents during...more
February 14th is for lovers – of unique and interesting eDiscovery case law disputes! Our February 2023 monthly webinar of cases covered by the eDiscovery Today blog discusses six disputes including declaration of a...more
This post continues our summary of substantive orders in patent litigation in the District of Minnesota. This summary includes discovery relevant to willfulness findings, stays under the customer suit exception, and...more