Document Request Responses Under FRCP 34's and 26's More Exacting Standards
Impermissible Boilerplate, Vague Objections, Outdated Templates, Relevancy, Proportionality, and Discovery on Discovery
Recording of a 90-minute CLE video webinar with Q&A
This CLE course will explore the challenges in responding to document requests under FRCP 26 and 34 and propose solutions to several perennial discovery problems, including overbroad requests, privilege, and novel ways to restrict responses. The panel will also raise questions on the impact of timing and resources in light of remote working.
Outline
- Refresher on FRCP 26 and 34 (December 2015)
- Caselaw update
- Five-plus years later, how are practitioners and the courts responding to these changes?
- Legislative responses. See, e.g., California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.280(a)
- Challenges when drafting and responding to requests for production:
- Requests that lack "reasonable particularity"
- Objecting to requests for production
- Avoiding boilerplate objections and objecting with "specificity"
- Identifying what is being produced vs. what is being withheld
- Identifying a time for production
- Privilege considerations
- Impact of COVID-19
- Practical tips
Benefits
The panel will review these and other essential matters:
- The 2015 revisions to FRCP and how courts and practitioners have responded to these changes
- Legislative responses, including California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.280(a)
- Drafting requests with "reasonable particularity"
- How to draft an objection "with specificity" and avoid boilerplate objections
- Identifying what is being produced vs. what is being withheld
- Identifying a time for production
- Identifying a privilege log format
- Impact of COVID-19 on discovery
Faculty
Kelly M. Cullen
GOIC Director
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe
Ms. Cullen has broad experience in all stages of discovery. Her practice ranges from coordinating preservation to... | Read More
Ms. Cullen has broad experience in all stages of discovery. Her practice ranges from coordinating preservation to custodian selection, collection, search terms, written discovery, depositions, and discovery-related briefing as well as significant experience leading meet and confers on contentious privilege issues in MDLs and class actions. Ms. Cullen also regularly advises clients on preservation and production issues associated with cloud computing.
Close
Audra C. Eidem Heinze
Shareholder
Banner Witcoff
Ms. Heinze applies a strategic and creative approach to resolving client needs, whether related to complex litigation,... | Read More
Ms. Heinze applies a strategic and creative approach to resolving client needs, whether related to complex litigation, opinion work, or transactional issues involving patents, trademarks, or copyrights. Her experience involves an extensive range of fields including, imaging devices and supplies, computer hardware and software, and athletic footwear, apparel and equipment. Ms. Heinze has represented clients in numerous proceedings across the country, including in California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Texas, the International Trade Commission, the PTAB, and the TTAB. She successfully sought affirmance at the U.S. Supreme Court—in a unanimous decision—of the lower court’s dismissal of the defendant’s trademark invalidity counterclaim.
Close
Logan J. Herlinger
Attorney
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe
Mr. Herlinger consults with Orrick attorneys and clients on eDiscovery strategy and information governance issues,... | Read More
Mr. Herlinger consults with Orrick attorneys and clients on eDiscovery strategy and information governance issues, including issues related to pending or threatened litigation and records management.
Close