BarbriSFCourseDetails
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack

Course Details

Course Information
  • smart_display Format

    On-Demand

  • signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level

  • work Practice Area

    Class Action and Other Litigation

Date & Time
  • event Date

    Thursday, June 30, 2022

  • schedule Time

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  • timer Program Length

    90 minutes

Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.

$297.00
CLE
ALL

This CLE course will explore the challenges in responding to document requests--particularly broad 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.

Faculty

Erin C. Tison
Attorney
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Ms. Tison has experience with all aspects of litigation, from filing the complaint up to serving as first chair at trial and everything in between. In addition to trial work, she has substantial experience taking and defending both fact and expert depositions, drafting and arguing complex dispositive briefing, managing the preservation, collection, analysis, and production of paper and electronic documents, conducting custodian interviews, and briefing complex and technical discovery and privilege issues.  Recently, Ms. Tison served an extended secondment with The Dow Chemical Company as a case Manager in Dow's Asbestos, Products Liability & Insurance Litigation Group. In this capacity, she managed the asbestos and premises litigation dockets for Union Carbide and Dow throughout the western and northeastern United States. This involved overseeing hundreds of ongoing product liability cases, including advising the litigation management team on case evaluation, resolution, and business strategies, as well as directing outside counsel and trial counsel teams.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Curtis D. Heckman
Attorney
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Mr. Heckman assists and serves as project manager for case teams and clients with all phases of discovery, including discovery requests, preservation, collection, review, discovery depositions, and motions practice. He has been seconded for long-term eDiscovery engagements at national and international clients to work directly with internal client IT teams and outside counsel on discovery issues. Mr. Heckman has extensive experience with preserving and collecting structured data from client cloud and on-premise applications, including meeting and conferring with opposing parties on structured data concerns.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Logan J. Herlinger
Attorney
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

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.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio

Description

The 2015 amendments to FRCP 26 and 34 are still a struggle for some. The Federal Rules require the parties responding to document requests to provide specific objections and state whether responsive documents are being withheld. Nevertheless, many attorneys continue to use boilerplate and vague pre-2015 responses and objections.

Historically, one of the most significant problems was respondents objecting broadly to requests for production yet producing only some documents. This left the requesting party guessing whether relevant and responsive information was withheld under the objections. The 2015 amendments to Rule 34 sought to end this uncertainty, but issues still arise. Conversely, there are times when production timing can be ambiguous or difficult to predict.

Objections that do not comply with the amendments may be deemed waived. Some judges have reasoned that boilerplate objections are legally meaningless or overruled otherwise legitimate objections for lack of specificity.

Listen as the panel dives deep into what the FRCP requires and novel ways to provide responses and objections that comply with the rules but retain sufficient flexibility to address the fluidity of discovery.

Outline

  1. Refresher on FRCP 26 and 34 (December 2015
  2. Caselaw update
    1. Six-plus years later, how are practitioners and the courts responding to these changes?
  3. Legislative responses. See, e.g., California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.280(a)
  4. Challenges when drafting and responding to requests for production
    1. Requests that lack "reasonable particularity"
    2. Objecting to requests for production
      1. Avoiding boilerplate objections and objecting with "specificity"
      2. Identifying what is being produced vs. what is being withheld
      3. Determining a time for production
    3. Privilege considerations
  5. 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
  • Determining a time for production
  • Identifying a privilege log format