Rules

In a discovery dispute over 557 requests for admission, the court found the Wayfarer Parties’ objections meritless but granted a short extension to aid in resolving the case fairly.

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.

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

Courts may deny motions to compel even if filed before discovery closes. Feit Electric v. CFLT highlights that delays, even within discovery, can render such motions untimely. Strategic planning and local rules are key.

A federal court ordered Amazon to disclose litigation hold notices and preservation efforts in a COVID-19 price gouging case, finding significant gaps and delays in its ESI preservation.

A Maryland court imposed Rule 37(e)(1) sanctions against a plaintiff for failing to preserve key Facebook and text message communications, providing the jury with a special instruction on the spoliation.

In Singleton v. Mazhari, the court held that a protective order motion was timely and excused meet-and-confer efforts as futile, offering guidance on both timing and procedural waivers.