A recent decision demonstrates the importance of following the Rules and the duty to cooperate, after a “quick peek” proved that an opponent’s discovery responses were incomplete. The Court wrote: “Defendants’ responses to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories and requests for production of documents are vague and confusing. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and […]| E-Discovery LLC
In Singleton v. Mazhari, 2024 WL 4644644 (D. Md. Oct. 30, 2024)(Austin, J.), non-party TEDCO’s blanket privilege and work product objections to a subpoena were denied; however, it lived to fight another day because the denial was without prejudice to file supported objections after a “meet and confe| E-Discovery LLC
In 1968, the movie “Dracula Has Risen from the Grave” was released. Like Dracula, despite being long since buried, boilerplate “general objections” keep popping up in what sometimes looks like the children’s game of “Whac a Mole.” It is difficult to understand why the message about boilerplate “| E-Discovery LLC
In Rullan v. Goden, 2024 WL 1191600 (D. Md. Mar. 20, 2024), the Hon. J. Mark Coulson construed a Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 motion to quash or modify a subpoena, which would have been heard in New York, as a Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) motion for protective order that was resolved in the District of Maryland. Rullan| E-Discovery LLC
In Smith v. Wormuth, 2024 WL 1012887 (D. Md. Mar. 8, 2024), the District Court again denied a spoliation motion as untimely. In the immortal words of Yankee Hall of Famer Yogi Bera: “It’s deja vu all over again.” Smith was an employment dispute arising out of a contentious relationship, with an| E-Discovery LLC
“ESI Protocols” are discussed in judicial opinions, articles, webinars, and blogs. They are flexible and useful; however, they may not meet all of the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f). After a Rule 26(f) conference, that Rule requires a “report” with a “discovery plan” that contains information| E-Discovery LLC
