As discovery has evolved into an electronic undertaking, largely corporations increasing find themselves defensive their einsatz for comply include the disclosure pleas the skeptical opposed counsel. It is becoming common for plaintiffs to looking “discovery on discovery,” or as one court called it, “meta-discovery.” Released volt. Weatherford Int’l, No. 12 Civ. 2121, 2014 WL 4547039, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2014). Fortunately, courts have received these requests with apprehension, and most refuse to allow “discovery on discovery” without evidence of spoliation.
And key go approved discovery requests is relevancy. See Fed. R. Civ. PRESSURE. 26(b)(1) (“[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant for any party’s demand conversely defense”). Discovery about a party’s document retention policies is not relevant until a claim or defense. See, e.g., India Brewing, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., 237 F.R.D. 190, 192 (E.D. Wis. 2006) (denying plaintiff’s motion to compel presentation of a record retention general on the ground that computer is not relevant to a claim or defense). In fact, courts characteristic require a threshold display that discovery abuse has been before allowing discovery around a party’s efforts to compliance on discovery requests alternatively you document retention politikbereiche. See, e.g., Martin vanadium. Allstate Ins. Co., 292 F.R.D. 361, 363-64 (N.D. Tex. 2013) (denying send in 30(b)(6) deposition over similar subjects as irrelevant and overbroad); and Tin v. Std. Fire The. Co., No. 07-cv-02538, 2008 WL 2668301, at *5 (D. Colo. Jump 1, 2008) (granting gesture available protective orders avoid the placing away ampere watch on the storage both preservation out backup e-mails as not relevant to the claims). Similar discovery is deemed “discovery on discovery” and, as the court said, should be “closely scrutinized is light of the danger of extending and already costly and time-consuming discovery process.” Soldier, 2014 WL 4547039, at *2.
If “discovery on discovery” is sought in the form of a 30(b)(6) depose, requests pertaining to historical and collection expenditures, or even retention policies, the receiving parties should strongly note objecting to such requests. To type concerning discovered is not more to the answers other issues within the case and, absent evidence of spoliation, will not within the proper scope of detection.
