Courts should order more cost-shifting in discovery, write attorneys David J. Kessler and Tarifa B. Laddon. In particular, in the rare cases where courts allow discovery on discovery, it should be presumed that the requester pays for the responding party's costs to produce this information.
July 08, 2013 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
Courts should order more cost-shifting in discovery. In particular, in the rare cases where courts allow discovery on discovery (i.e., how the opponent preserved, collected and produced responsive documents), it should be presumed that the requester pays for the responding party’s costs to produce this information.
As U.S. Magistrate Judge John Facciola noted more than 10 years ago in McPeek v. Ashcroft (D.C 2001):
Presented by BigVoodoo
Join General Counsel and Senior Legal Leaders at the Premier Forum Designed For and by General Counsel from Fortune 1000 Companies
The Texas Lawyer honors attorneys and judges who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession in Texas.
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
