Discovery Requests in Employment Litigation After Amended Rules 26(b) and 34(b)

Drafting or Responding to Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents or Admission of Facts, and Third-Party Subpoenas

Recording of a 90-minute CLE webinar with Q&A


Conducted on Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Recorded event now available

or call 1-800-926-7926
Program Materials

This CLE webinar will provide guidance to employment litigators for drafting discovery requests that are likely to survive heightened judicial scrutiny under the recent amendments to Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The panel will also discuss tactics for objecting to discovery requests that are overly burdensome and producing documents and electronically stored information (ESI) in a timely manner as required by amended Rule 34(b).

Description

Since the 2015 amendments to Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, employment litigators have increasingly raised proportionality arguments to support their own discovery requests and to object to opposing counsel’s discovery requests. Courts have emphasized that parties must rein in broad discovery requests.

Litigators must justify any discovery request beyond the direct circumstances of the employment law claim and damages sought. Interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions, and third-party subpoenas for information in personnel files intended to demonstrate similar conduct or prior complaints may be narrowed or quashed if the burden of producing the information outweighs its likely benefit.

Drafting discovery requests likely to withstand burden and proportionality challenges and crafting objections to broad discovery requests are critical skills for employment litigators. This includes understanding how to object to Rule 34 requests with specificity and how to respond to early requests for production within a “reasonable time,” which the 2015 amendments also require.

Listen as our authoritative panel discusses how courts are interpreting and applying the 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and best practices for employment litigators for drafting and responding to discovery requests.

READ MORE

Outline

  1. Brief overview of 2015 amendments and their requirements
  2. Considerations for drafting discovery requests
  3. Strategies for responding/objecting to discovery requests

Benefits

The panel will review these and other key issues:

  • When drafting discovery requests, what considerations should employment counsel take into account to ensure that the requests are in line with the proportionality standard?
  • When responding to early requests for production, how specific must employment litigators be in their objections? What constitutes “reasonable time” for producing information?
  • What guidance does case law provide on determining the circumstances in which the burden or expense of obtaining discovery outweighs the likely benefit?

Faculty

Antezana, Patricia
Patricia E. Antezana

Counsel
Reed Smith

Ms. Antezana focuses her practice on general litigation, including commercial matters, business torts and product...  |  Read More

Bornhorst, Michael
Michael H. Bornhorst

Counsel
Mayer Brown

Mr. Bornhorst is a member of the firm’s Consumer Litigation and Class Action Defense Group and the Electronic...  |  Read More

Ray, Niloy
Niloy Ray

Shareholder – eDiscovery Counsel
Littler Mendelson

Mr. Ray specializes in litigating critical e-discovery issues and challenges. He routinely advises clients on...  |  Read More

Other Formats
— Anytime, Anywhere

Strafford will process CLE credit for one person on each recording. All formats include program handouts. To find out which recorded format will provide the best CLE option, select your state:

CLE On-Demand Video

$297

Download

$297