Courts and parties have been dealing with discovery overuse for decades. The advisory committee notes to both the 1983 and 2015 revisions to Rule 26 reference the problem of over-discovery and encourage judges to be more aggressive in identifying and discouraging discovery overuse. Have courts been more aggressive in discouraging discovery overuse? Have parties since the 2015 revisions to Rule 26 been inclined to follow Rule 1’s instruction to employ the Federal Rules to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action?
This webinar will review recent case opinions in which courts have independently revised overbroad discovery. The presenters will also provide their views on relevance and proportionality considerations in discovery and assessing the risk of court revisions to discovery requests.
During this course you will learn about the Federal Firearm Rights Restoration program and the Feder...
Conducting an internal investigation that is incisive, effective and legally compliant is tough enou...
You’ve arranged to speak with a reporter. Do you know how to deliver insights that are memorab...
2026 was a very important year when it comes to federal procurement developments, Artificial Intelli...
As the largest purchaser of goods and services in the world, the United States Government requires f...
Artificial intelligence is reshaping the strategy and economics of patent litigation, from locating ...
Adverse and derogatory information often has devastating effects on a contractor's ability to win co...
Class action waivers in arbitration agreements remain enforceable, but a decade of U.S. Supreme Cour...
Confidentiality Agreements (also called NDAs) are too often treated as routine. So routine, th...
“Is Your Voice Biometric Data? BIPA, AI and the New Era of Voiceprint Litigation” looks ...