The Federal Rules mandate a discovery plan under Rule 26(f), but not an ESI Protocol. Understanding this difference is critical for defensible and compliant discovery practices.

Using Lively v. Wayfarer Studios as a case study, this post examines how major lawsuits strain already overburdened federal judicial caseloads.

Blake Lively wins partial motion over discovery of birth video footage in her lawsuit against Wayfarer Studios. The court orders production but denies sanctions.

In Hughes v. Apple, the court upheld restrained redactions of irrelevant medical data in a class action over AirTag stalking, rejecting Apple’s demand for exhaustive detail as disproportionate and privacy-invasive.

Did deleting “reasonably calculated” from Rule 26(b)(1) change the scope of discovery? A 2025 case clarifies the amendment’s intent and impact.

In Glaxosmithkline v. Pfizer, the Special Master denied a motion to compel, holding that no deadline existed for proposing additional search terms since the ESI Protocol set no milestone.

In U.S. v. Jones, the court rejected both overly broad and narrow interpretations of privilege waiver and explicitly denied the government’s “cumulative waiver” theory as contrary to Federal Rule of Evidence 502.

A federal court finds that producing ESI with proper metadata may fulfill Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) requirements, eliminating the need for document correlation in many cases.

A federal court sanctioned attorneys $10K for violating a standing order against LinkedIn research on jurors, sparking debate over privacy, ethics, and the evolving “duty to Google” in jury selection.

A federal court barred uploading confidential discovery materials to AI, raising key eDiscovery and confidentiality issues for future Rule 26(f) discussions.