United States: Advocacy In E-Discovery More Important Than Ever

In this day and age, advocacy starts with competence in ESI issues. An effective advocate must be able to assess e-discovery needs and issues, implement appropriate preservation procedures, advise clients on options for storage and preservation, understand the client's ESI systems and storage, and handle the management, review and production of ESI in litigation. But this knowledge by itself is not enough. Only with an understanding of how the amendments to the Federal Rules account for issues pertaining to ESI can the attorney meaningfully advocate for the client.

 Relevance and Proportionality Defines the Scope of Discovery

One of the major changes to the rules is the deletion of the phrase "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" in Rule 26. That language was previously used to describe the test for relevance, but it was often incorrectly applied to define the scope of discovery to the point where it swallows any limitation on the scope of discovery. The new test now emphasizes proportionality, and the relevant case law informing the scope of discovery going forward will increasingly be that which applies the new rules. See In re Bard IVC Filters Prod. Liab. Litig., 317 F.R.D. 562, 564 (D. Ariz. 2016) ("[J]ust as a statute could effectively overrule cases applying a former legal standard, the 2015 amendment effectively abrogated cases applying a prior version of Rule 26(b)(1)").

First, attorneys should perform a comprehensive early-stage assessment of their cases. They should candidly evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the claims and defenses, and determine what evidence to present at trial. This way, attorneys can design and implement the most efficient, effective discovery plan. This forces attorneys to be thoughtful about the claims and defenses they want to assert so as to not expand the scope of discovery beyond what is good for the client. For example, attorneys should avoid pushing a claim or counterclaim that has a low probability of success, because doing so may expose the client to burdensome and expensive discovery on an unimportant issue.

With this in mind, it is important for attorneys to implement the new rules in a way that furthers the interests of the client. The rule amendments underscore the notion that the Rules require all parties to work together in a cooperative and proportional way by (1) considering costs, the parties' resources, burdens and importance of issues, and (2) communicating early and often about what is actually in dispute and what is necessary to resolve the dispute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (amended to require that "the court and the parties" use the Rule to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding); Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(1) committee notes (promotes "direct simultaneous communication" between parties). This starts by being transparent in the initial stages of the discovery process by disclosing the search methodology, locations and rationale in preparing the client's responses to discovery requests, and justifying your methods under the proportionality principles emphasized under the new rules. For example, attorneys can explain the keyword searches being used in specific data systems for specific custodians.

Be Specific in Seeking Discovery

Attorneys should leverage the New Rules to promote efficiency. Rule 26(d)(2) permits a party to serve requests for production under Rule 34 before the Rule 26(f) conference. Therefore, attorneys may want to serve discovery requests before the Rule 26(f) conference to work through any issues, discuss valid objections and negotiate the scope of discovery at the 26(f) conference itself. In other words, attorneys can make the Rule 26(f) conference productive. Rule 26(d)(3) allows parties to stipulate to case-specific sequences of discovery (rather than only on motion or order). And the Rule 26(f) conference/plan must include parties' views on preservation of ESI.

Attorneys can best serve their clients by demonstrating to the court that they are conducting discovery in good faith; this will ultimately help their clients and give the judge more reason to believe that parties are reasonable and forthright. The most fundamental way to do this is to serve narrowly tailored and targeted discovery requests. Parties often serve their adversaries with long lists of broad, vague and burdensome requests, which violate the new Federal Rules and may lead less patient judges to deny not only unnecessary requests, but also necessary ones that can get conflated in the mix of overly burdensome requests. A court is more likely to enforce narrowly tailored requests and lead to the discovery of important evidence. See Elec. Pension Fund v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 14-Civ.-7126 (JMF), 2016 WL 6779901, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2016) (discovery request seeking "all documents" by its very nature "falls short" on proportionality principles under Rule 26).

Draft discovery requests and responses assuming the judge will see them. If there is a dispute, the judge will review them, and having reasonable, defensible positions will benefit you and your client. Additionally, overly expansive requests can also be strategically harmful because they give adversaries the opportunity to bury important documents among thousands or millions of irrelevant ones. Seek discovery in a manageable way in order to avoid wasting time and money. If the advocate fails to limit the scope of discovery, the cost of collecting, managing and reviewing documents can snowball into exorbitant sums. See Ciuffitelli v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 2016 WL 6963039, at *5 (D. Or. Nov. 28, 2016) ("The 2015 amendment calls for renewed consideration of the time and money litigants must expend on discovery, and for courts to impose reasonable limits on discovery through the common-sense concept of proportionality.")

Be Specific in Objections When Responding to Discovery

New Rule 34(b)(2)(C) requires specificity about whether any responsive documents are being withheld on the basis of an objection. Judges have always disdained and been critical of boilerplate objections. See, e.g., Buskirk v. Wiles, No. 15-Civ.-03503, 2016 WL 7118288, at *2 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 6, 2016) ("[O]bjections to Rule 34 requests must be stated specifically and boilerplate objections regurgitating words and phrases from Rule 26 are completely unacceptable."); Menell v. Rialto Unified Sch. Dist., 15-Civ.-2124 (VAP) (KKX), 2016 WL 3452920, at *4 (C.D. Cal. June 20, 2016) ("Defendant's boilerplate relevance and vagueness objections to each request are improper and not well-taken.").

Now, "with the advent of the 2015 amendments to Rule 26, the days of boilerplate objections are over." Kruse v. Regina Caeli, Inc., No. 16-10304, 2016 WL 3549361, at *1 (E.D. Mich. June 30, 2016) (dismissing boilerplate interrogatory objections, "each of which repeats the [same] formulaic phrase."). Under new Rule 34(b)(2) (C), attorneys must state specifically what information is being withheld on the basis of any objection. See Sperling v. Stein Mart, Inc., 15-Civ.-1411 (BRO) (KKX), 2017 WL 90370, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2017) ("general or boilerplate objections such as 'overly burdensome and harassing' are improper – especially when a party fails to submit any evidentiary declarations supporting such objections."). Simply put, "generalized objections ... do not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Wellin v. Wellin, – F.Supp.3d –, No. 13-Civ.-1831-DCN, 2016 WL 5539523, at *3 (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2016).

Attorneys may be prone to include boilerplate objections without detailing the specific bases for any valid objections, thinking that doing so serves as a precautionary measure to preserve the right to invoke any objection later, when in fact, the opposite may be true. Failure to be specific in discovery objections may actually result in waiver of any objections. See Fischer v. Forrest, – F.Supp.3d –, 2017 WL 773694, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2017) ("Any discovery response that does not comply with [amended] Rule 34's requirement to state objections with specificity ... will be deemed a waiver of all objections[.]"). See also State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Admiral Ins. Co., – F.Supp.3d –, 15-Civ.-2745 (RMG), 2016 WL 8135417, at *7 (D.S.C. Feb. 4, 2016) ("boilerplate, general objections standing alone waive any actual, specific objections."); Schultz v. Sentinel Ins. Co., Ltd., 15- Civ.-04160 (LLP), 2016 WL 3149686, at *7 (D.S.D. June 3, 2016) ("boilerplate general objections fail to preserve any valid objection at all because they are not specific to a particular discovery request ..."); Arrow Enter. Computing Sols., Inc. v. BlueAlly, LLC, 15-Civ.- 0037 (FL), 2016 WL 4287929, at *3 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 15, 2016) (Defendants' objections "are nothing more than boilerplate objections: they fail to specify why the requested documents are not relevant to a party's claim or defense and not proportional to the needs of the case.").

Understanding the Remedial Measures for Lost ESI Under Rule 37(e)

In 2006, the Federal Rules were amended to limit the circumstances under which sanctions could be imposed for failing to preserve ESI. It provided a safe harbor for the loss of ESI that occurred in good faith. But with the exponential growth in the volume of ESI, the circuit courts had established significantly different standards for imposing punitive sanctions or curative measures under similar circumstances.

New Rule 37(e) was drafted to incorporate specific remedial measures to minimize the inconsistencies across federal courts in addressing the failure to preserve ESI. It authorizes and specifies measures a court may employ if electronically stored information (ESI) that should have been preserved is lost, as well as specifies the findings necessary to justify these measures. Upon a finding of prejudice, the court may order measures no greater than necessary to cure that prejudice (e.g., excluding item of evidence to offset prejudice, jury instructions to assist in evaluation of evidence). Upon finding intent to restrict another party's use of ESI, the court may presume information was unfavorable, may instruct the jury that lost information was unfavorable (i.e., adverse inferences), or may dismiss the case or enter a default judgment.

But some courts misapply new Rule 37(e) or do not give it proper consideration. For example, in Brice v. Auto- Owners Ins. Co., 2016 WL 1633025 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 21, 2016), the court granted an adverse inference under pre-2015 Sixth Circuit authority for negligent deletion of email and text messages, without consideration of Rule 37(e). Had the court applied Rule 37(e), then it is unlikely that it would have imposed an adverse inference for "negligent" conduct, id. at *6, without finding an "intent to deprive" required under Rule 37(e) to impose an adverse inference.

Although it may be tempting to seek or impose harsh sanctions for failing to preserve ESI, the new rule details exercising certain measures under specific findings as appropriate, and the absence of such findings should lead the court to exercise restraint. For example, in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Cuker Interactive, LLC, 2017 WL 239341 (W.D. Ark. Jan. 19, 2017), the court chided plaintiff Wal-Mart for "very poor practice" in wiping the laptop when it knew "litigation was looming," but still declined to impose sanctions where alleged prejudice resulting from loss of Wal-Mart's ESI (in former employee's laptop) was speculative. The court acknowledged that "[w]hether to impose discovery sanctions is a decision committed to this Court's discretion, but the scope of that discretion narrows as to the severity of the sanction increases." Id. at *1.

Effective Advocacy May Involve Educating Your Adversary and/or the Court

Despite the fact that the changes were implemented in 2015, many jurists and attorneys are unfamiliar with how the rule changes should affect discovery on a practical level. See, e.g., Cole's Wexford Hotel, Inc. v. Highmark Inc., – F.Supp.3d – , No. 10-Civ.-1609, 2016 WL 5025751, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 20, 2016) (special master erred in considering "relevancy to be as broad as the subject matter, which is broader than the scope of discovery contemplated by [amended] Rule 26," which now requires consideration of "proportionality"). Lawyers should understand the new rules, encourage early and active judicial management, and make it a point to express the purpose of the rule changes. "For Rule 26(b) (1)'s proportionality mandate to be meaningful, it must apply from the onset of a case. Imposing proportionality only after motion practice establishes the viability of the parties' claims or defenses would thwart that purpose." Ciuffitelli v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 2016 WL 6963039, at *5 (D. Or. Nov. 28, 2016).

It is important to set the tone of being fair and reasonable from the beginning. This should be done first at the Rule 26(f) conference between the parties and again early in the case at the pretrial conference mandated under Rule 16. Attorney should use the Rule 16 conference as a substantive hearing to map out discovery, which can serve as an opportunity to integrate the local rules/practice with the new Federal Rules to advance the purpose of the rule amendments in any action. See Card v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 2016 WL 1298723, at *5 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2016) ("Consistent with the recently amended FRCP, the Court believes a pretrial conference would provide the best forum for expediting disposition of this action. The conference will address

At the first case management conference, invite the judge to direct discussions with parties to formulate the scope of relevance and productions. Communicate with the court early and often in attempts to engage the adversary in cooperative discussions on the scope of discovery. If the judge is not familiar with the new rules that should govern such discussions, then provide the court with the background, commentary and law it needs in order to apply the new rules effectively. It may be helpful to refer to sources of national thought leadership, such as Sedona materials, scholarship from other judges or the Manual for Complex Litigation published by the Federal Judicial Center.

Judges who involve themselves in early case management benefit from doing so. Early case management helps minimize the time and resources the court would later expend on dealing with discovery disputes. Setting forth expectations and clearly defining the scope of discovery under the new standards promote efficiency and quicker resolution of cases on the court's docket. A hands-on approach from the judge also signals to the parties that gamesmanship in discovery will not be tolerated. Courts should keep in mind, and lawyers may need to remind the court, that "[t]he amendment [to] Rule 26(b)(1) was intended to encourage judges to be more aggressive in identifying and discouraging discovery overuse by emphasizing the need to analyze proportionality[.]" Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., – F.R.D. –, 2016 WL 7017356, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2016).

Some courts may nevertheless remain reluctant to get involved with or seriously address discovery disputes. Therefore, it is important that the attorney maximize the utility of the new rules by proactively working with opposing counsel to address thorny issues before disputes and problems arise. That should start with making productive use of the Rule 26(f) conference and Rule 16 pretrial conference, as discussed above. Be fair, forthright and transparent. In leading by example, the lawyer establishes the moral ground to demand that the adversary reciprocate in kind. Ultimately, all judges respond to practical and commonsense approaches advocated by lawyers who have established their credibility by being reasonable in negotiations and knowledgeable about the current rules/law.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.