Ediscovery: Two different Judges, different reasoning, same conclusion, ease the discovery process
November 12th, 2008 Filed Under E-discovery
Leonard Deutchman of Pennsylvania Weekly wrote an interesting article about the Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Service Company and the Containment Technologies Group v. American Society of Health Systems Pharmacists cases.
Two thoughtful jurists issued opinions in discovery matters that took opposite tacks in different situations to achieve the same goal.
In Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Service Company, No. 1:2008cv00273 (D.Md. Oct. 15, 2008), the well-respected Judge Paul W. Grimm held that the party requesting discovery must make tailored requests while the producing party must supply specific responses as to why a request may be overboard, inaccessible or otherwise burdensome.
In Containment Technologies Group v. American Society of Health Systems Pharmacists, No. 1:2007cv00997 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 10, 2008), Judge Tim A. Baker held that a producing party may broadly include e-discovery within a protective order and does not have to review each part of each file before so doing. The specificity required in Mancia and its absence in Containment Technologies both have the same goal, which was one of the goals of the 2006 Amendments to the Federal Rules: to move along the discovery process. They also both shed light on the practices emerging from the amendments as well as illustrate one tenet of those practices, namely, that in e-discovery practice, informed, smart answers win.
Post Linx
Permalink | Trackback |
|
Print This Article |