Author: Michael D. Berman

Does Every “Hit” on a “Hit Report” Have to be Produced?

Courts often allow parties to review documents for relevance before production, even when a document is flagged in a “hit report.” This article discusses the legal nuances of hit report relevance in discovery, including how...

Service of a “Preservation Notice” in the Forum District Does Not Confer Long-Arm Jurisdiction Over the Out-of-State Sender

In Plastics Industry Assoc. v. Bonta, the D.C. court found that a preservation notice sent to an entity in the forum state does not confer long-arm jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. This ruling clarifies that...

Privilege Objections Denied Without Prejudice

In a recent ruling, the court denied TEDCO’s privilege objections for lack of specificity, underscoring that blanket claims cannot shift the burden of proof to the court. However, TEDCO may refile supported objections after a...

“Reasonably Calculated to Lead to Discovery of Admissible Evidence”

Rig Consulting, Inc. v. Rogers addresses the enduring influence of the “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery” standard despite the 2015 amendment to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). This well-reasoned decision reiterates the importance of relevant, proportional discovery...

Is Marking Documents as “Work Product” an Admission that the Duty to Preserve is Triggered?

The intersection of marking documents as “work product” and the common-law duty to preserve raises critical implications for litigation holds. In cases like Stuart v. County of Riverside, courts have inferred a link between work...

Is a Web Bug a Wiretap?

The Massachusetts Supreme Court in Vita v. New England Baptist Hosp. found that web tracking and browsing data collection does not constitute a “wiretap” under Massachusetts law, as the statute’s scope applies only to person-to-person...

Dilatory Objections to Corporate Designee Topics Were Too Late; “Blanket” De-Designation Request Was Denied

The court in U.S. v. Novo Nordisk rejected Washington’s untimely objections to Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics and denied a blanket request to de-designate confidential documents. The ruling led to Washington’s failure to specify overbroad topics...

Court-Ordered Production of a “Destruction/Unavailable” Log

In Leprino Foods Co. v. Avani Outpatient Surgical Center, the court compelled the production of a “destruction/unavailable” log. This decision raises questions about the necessity and practicality of such logs in discovery and the need...

Discovery From Former Attorney About Disputed Quid Pro Quo Offer to Opponent

In GLD3, LLC v. Albra, plaintiffs sought discovery from a former town attorney about an alleged quid pro quo offer regarding property development. The court denied the deposition but allowed a limited interrogatory, balancing privilege...

Discovery Dispute: “Both cannot be true.”

What Objections May Be Raised to a Subpoena by a Non-Party?

In Trusted Sci. & Tech., Inc. v. Evancich, the Maryland Appellate Court clarified that non-parties can object to subpoenas on relevance, overbreadth, and undue burden. The decision underscores the importance of protecting non-party interests in...

Discovery Denied Because “the Book is Not Worth the Candle” – 50 Custodians is Enough

In Dale v. Deutsche Telekom AG, the court ruled that adding three additional in-house counsel to a list of 50 custodians for discovery would be disproportionate to the needs of the case. The court emphasized...