Thinking About Asking for More Discovery, Even After Disputes? Don’t Get Shut Down; Think Narrowly.

Thinking About Asking for More Discovery, Even After Disputes? Don’t Get Shut Down; Think Narrowly.

Many of you have been there. After months of discovery and the unavoidable disputes that accompany the process, you still need more. Do not make the same mistake that this lawyer made.

In Herron v. Fannie Mae, the plaintiff sued the defendant Fannie Mae for alleged illegal termination. The plaintiff asserted that she was fired because she complained about the management and decisions, among other things. Throughout the proceedings of the case, there was a record filled with discovery disputes and discovery deadline extensions. The discovery process was dragging along until United States District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer put an end to all discovery in a single order titled, “ORDER ON ONE MILLIONTH DISCOVERY DISPUTE.” While there was not actually a million discovery disputes, the judge had become so fed up with the parties and their arguments that she was forced to take action. “Much as the Court admires the advocacy of counsel, it is exhausted with these disputes. Contrary to its usual practice, the Court will rule immediately.”

The straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back was two separate requests from the plaintiff. Instead of seeking specific and narrow discovery, the plaintiff asked for “highly overbroad” depositions and document requests. For example, the plaintiff asked for the entirety of “confidential internal presentations and deliberations on executive bonuses by the Board of Directors for all of Fannie Mae’s executive staff for two years.” This request, remember, is coming from a plaintiff that is seeking an illegal termination claim. Judge Collyer stated that “these topics could have, and should have, been laser focused. They were not and will not be enforced.” Due to the overbroad nature of one parties’ requests, all future discovery for both parties was terminated.

The major practice lesson that comes from this is two-fold. First, when seeking additional discovery after months of disputes, stay narrow and focused. Taking the extra time to efficiently state exactly what you are looking for could keep discovery on track (think pleading specificity standards). Plus, the judge will appreciate the candor and targeted nature of the request. Second, make sure that the discovery you are requesting is on point with what your case issue will allow. As seen in Herron, reaching for too much discovery that may be beyond your cause of action is a sure fire way to anger a judge.

Want to read more articles like this?  Sign up for our post notification newsletter, here.

Comments (3):

  1. Broad discovery requests are generally disfavored by courts even during the onset of litigation. If there have been discovery dispute ongoing and then parties continue to make discovery mistakes, judges will generally not be very forgiving. Discovery requests should be narrowly tailored to relevant issues. Over-broad discovery requests are burdensome not only on the producing party, but also on the requesting party. In complex litigation, discovery can cost parties hundreds of thousands of dollars and therefore should be contained to only relevant information.

  2. The over broad discovery request of the Plaintiff was enough to terminate all future discovery of both parties. The Defendant should not be punished because of the Plaintiff’s over broad request. Terminating all discovery because of the requests by one party could promote parties who want discovery to end to submit frivolous, over broad requests with the hopes that the Judge follows the decision in Herron.

  3. I tend to think that making broad dicover requets is often a result of laziness. A well-thought, narrow discovery request that still cover necessary grounds takes a lot of efforts and may require that the requesting attorney think thoroughly about the potential legal theory. A lot of times, especally at the initial stage of litigations, counsels may be tempted to just throw out broad requests and leave the problem to the other side without having think through. I guess the lession is that attorneys must be diligent at the start. That will be helpful for construcing tailored discovery request and staying on the good side of the court.

Leave a Reply

  • Find an eLesson

  • Register for Post Notifications

    Subscribe to receive updates whenever a new eLesson is published.

    Manage Subscriptions
  • Let Us Blog Your Event!

    eLessons Learned is fast becoming the site of choice for employers, employees, judges, lawyers, and journalists who are interested in learning more about these areas without being intimidated by the complexity of the topic. In fact, organizations and event coordinators often feature eLessons Learned as their official eDiscovery blog. Fill out our simple registration form to have eLessons Learned be the official blog of your organization or event.

    Register Now
  • Recent Praise

    The blog takes a clever approach to [e-discovery]. Each post discusses an e-discovery case that involves an e-discovery mishap, generally by a company employee. It discusses the conduct that constituted the mishap and then offers its ‘e-lesson’ — a suggestion on how to learn from the mistake and avoid it happening to you.

    Robert Ambrogi

    Legal Tech Blogger and creator of LawSites

    Although I may have missed some, yours is the first article that I have seen addressing Zubulake II. It is often the lost opinion amongst the others.

    Laura A. Zubulake

    Plaintiff, Zubulake v. UBS Warburg

    Click here to see more.