Judges used two different approaches, one “general” and one “specific” in an attempt to keep e-discoveyr moving along.
In Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Service Company, No. 1:2008cv00273 (D.Md. Oct. 15, 2008), the well-respected Judge Paul W. Grimm held that the party requesting discovery must make tailored requests while the producing party must supply specific responses as to why a request may be overboard, inaccessible or otherwise burdensome.
In Containment Technologies Group v. American Society of Health Systems Pharmacists, No. 1:2007cv00997 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 10, 2008), Judge Tim A. Baker held that a producing party may broadly include e-discovery within a protective order and does not have to review each part of each file before so doing.
A description of these decisions is found in an article from the Pennsylvania Law Weekly. For information regarding discovery requests and responses, including e-discovery in particular, see the SmartRules Guide for the type of discovery at issue. Guides exist for interrogatories, requests for production, requests for admission, deposition notices and subpoenas in most United States District Court jurisdictions. For example, Northern District of California Response to Interrogatories, and Eastern District of Texas Requests for Admission.