Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(g) – “Every … discovery request, response, or objection must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s own name…. By signing, an attorney or party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry:
…(B) with respect to a discovery request, response, or objection, it is:
(i) consistent with these rules and warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law, or for establishing new law;
(ii) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and
(iii) neither unreasonable nor unduly burdensome or expensive, considering the needs of the case, prior discovery in the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the action.
- Filter by
- Categories
- Tags
- Authors
- Show all
- All
- "Slots" Litigation in MD
- Book Reviews
- Commercial Litigation
- District of MD
- ESI
- ESI Protocol a/k/a Discovery Plans
- Important Posts
- News Stories
- Protecting the Judiciary
- Social Media
- Software
- Uncategorized
- All
- Anecdote
- Artificial Intelligence
- Citations
- Computer Usage Policies
- Conference of Parties
- Cooperation
- cost
- Costs
- Data Map
- Discoverability
- Ethics
- Evidence
- Evidence: Authentication
- Experts
- Forensics
- FRCP 26(g)
- Historical Highlights
- information governance
- Inherent power
- Litigation Hold: Proportionality
- Litigation Hold: Scope
- Litigation Hold: Trigger
- MD Public Information Act
- MD Rules v. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- Mediation
- Metadata
- Objections
- Privacy
- Privilege
- Rules
- Sanctions
- Search
- Self Preservation
- Slots
- Summary Judgment
- Trade Secrets
- What is a Document?
January 17, 2026
Published by Michael Berman at January 17, 2026
Categories
A hallucinated citation issue was addressed in Boyd v. Lee, 2026 WL 111263 (Appl. Ct. Md. Jan. 14, 2026)(unreported). Hallucinated case citations are “old news.” To paraphrase, “[I]t is no longer amateur hour.” (Feb. 12, 2021)(citation omitted). Maryland has not been immune. Maryland Fake Citation Case – Court Issues a Warning – […]
December 24, 2025
Published by Michael Berman at December 24, 2025
Categories
Motions to compel were both “unripe” and “untimely” in Mindtickle, Inc. v. Studio Enterprise, LLC, 2025 WL 3691969 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2025). The court also described an inadequate Rule 26(f) “discovery plan.” Additionally, bilateral agreements could not modify the scheduling order. Mindtickle’s timing theory was deemed “upside down.” Mindtickle echoes Golat […]
December 21, 2025
Published by Michael Berman at December 21, 2025
I posted 237 blogs this year to date. Many are on EDRM or JD Supra. Some that may be worth reading are: An “ESI Protocol” is Not a Rule 26(f) “Discovery Plan” What is the Purpose of an ESI Protocol? Court Addresses Seven Key Issues Artificial Intelligence in Maryland Courts “Just When […]
September 8, 2025
Published by Michael Berman at September 8, 2025
Categories
Li v. Merck & Co., Inc., 2025 WL 2162949 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 30, 2025), is the latest in a series of discovery holdings in that lawsuit. I described some of the prior holdings in Li. v. Merck Addresses: Trigger; Spoliation Discovery; and, Document Unitization (Feb. 26, 2025); Court Reviews Document Unitization Dispute […]
June 18, 2025
Published by Michael Berman at June 18, 2025
Categories
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(g) is called the “stop and think” rule. In Grullon v. Lewis, 2025 WL 1693425 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 17, 2025), the court found a violation of that rule. The court held that: To satisfy the requirements of Rule 26(g)(1) and comply with counsel’s ethical obligations as an officer of the Court, counsel […]
January 19, 2024
Published by Michael Berman at January 19, 2024
Categories
“Self-collection” is often viewed as prohibited. Abraham Maslow said that: “I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.” This blog addresses a methodology designed by Ralph Losey, Esq., through which self-collection may be defensible. At bottom, Ralph[1] […]
January 2, 2024
Published by Michael Berman at January 2, 2024
Categories
“ESI Protocols” are discussed in judicial opinions, articles, webinars, and blogs. They are flexible and useful; however, they may not meet all of the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f). After a Rule 26(f) conference, that Rule requires a “report” with a “discovery plan” that contains information that may not be in an ESI […]
December 23, 2022
Published by Michael Berman at December 23, 2022
Categories
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(g) has been called the “stop and think” rule. The Rule is “designed to curb discovery abuse” and to “impose an ‘affirmative duty’ on counsel to behave responsibly during discovery….” The Hon. Paul W. Grimm, et al., “New Paradigm for Discovery Practice: Cooperation” 43 Md. Bar J. 26, 29-30 (Nov./Dec.2010), quoting […]
December 16, 2022
Published by Michael Berman at December 16, 2022
Categories
The Sedona Conference recently published a public comment version of its “Primer on Managing Electronic Discovery in Small Cases” (Dec. 2022). There has long been an interest in low-cost technology. For example, two decades ago, I wrote “Low Cost Litigation Technology” (Md. Bar Journal Nov./Dec. 2000). Similarly, Craig Ball has blogged about […]
June 1, 2022
Published by Michael Berman at June 1, 2022
Categories
Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007), fills 67 pages on Westlaw. In the Complaint, the plaintiff sought $36,000 plus interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs.[1] The Counterclaim sought to enforce a $14,100 arbitration award.[2] The decision is a treatise on admissibility of ESI, stating: Although cases abound […]
November 27, 2021
Published by Michael Berman at November 27, 2021
Categories
The Hon. Paul W. Grimm recently wrote of the need for more education about discovery. Judge Grimm wrote that law schools share some of the blame for discovery abuses “for not spending sufficient time teaching students about discovery obligations in civil procedure classes.” P. Grimm, “Good Faith in Discovery,” 46 Litigation 23 […]
August 3, 2021
Published by Michael Berman at August 3, 2021
Categories
In Maker’s Mark Distiller, Inc. v. Spalding Grp., Inc., 2021 WL 2018880 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 20, 2021), the court addressed self-collection. I have previously written on self-collection in “Unsupervised Self-Collection Predictably Led to Problems,” and in “Self-Identification and Self-Preservation: A Fool for a Client?,” I cited to R. Losey, “Another “Fox Guarding […]
July 23, 2021
Published by Michael Berman at July 23, 2021
Categories
In Hyundai Motor Amer. Corp. v. N. American Automotive Svcs., Inc., et al., 2021 WL 3111191 (S.D. Fl. Jul. 22, 2021), sanctions were imposed against the plaintiff, Hyundai Motor America Corp. (“HMA”). At bottom, HMA failed to follow basic, well-established procedures to implement a litigation hold, and crucial evidence then went missing. […]
July 19, 2021
Published by Michael Berman at July 19, 2021
Categories
As one of the most popular social media sites, Facebook is the subject of numerous ESI cases. Three recent decisions address deactivation v. deletion, the value of native Facebook files when authentication is disputed, and the search for responsive information. DEACTIVATION OR DELETION? Brown v. SSA Atlantic, LLC, 2021 WL 1015891 (S.D.Ga. […]
May 14, 2021
Published by Michael Berman at May 14, 2021
Categories
In two recent decisions, the District of Maryland has imposed sanctions for failure to properly investigate a client’s documents. Taken together, Bioiberica Nebraska and Membreno show that the Court expects a reasonable inquiry into information that is within a party’s possession, custody, or practical control. Filings or representations that contradict such information […]
February 12, 2021
Published by Michael Berman at February 12, 2021
Categories
In a February 11, 2021, post, Court Enforces Strict Sanctions For Failing To Be Competent In ESI Obligations | Farrell Fritz, P.C. – JDSupra , the author describes the sanctions decision in In DR Distributors, LLC v. 21 Century Smoking, Inc., a trademark dispute over electronic cigarettes, stating: As noted by Judge Johnson, “[i]t […]
February 7, 2021
Published by Michael Berman at February 7, 2021
Categories
In Membreno v. Atlanta Restaurant Partners, LLC, 2021 WL 351174 (D. Md. Feb. 2, 2021), the Court applied the spoliation doctrine in an employment discrimination case. The plaintiff alleged injury due to a hostile work environment and discrimination based on gender identity and sex. The Court wrote: “Discovery was contentious….” The plaintiff […]
February 7, 2021
Published by Michael Berman at February 7, 2021
Categories
In Membreno v. Atlanta Restaurant Partners, LLC, 2021 WL 351174 (D. Md. Feb. 2, 2021), the Court penalized a litigant for her untimely filing of a spoliation motion, even though the motion had merit. While the Court granted the request for sanctions, it denied a request for attorneys’ fees due to the […]
January 2, 2021
Published by Michael Berman at January 2, 2021
Categories
In Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n. v M1 5100 Corp, 2020 WL 3581372 (S.D. Fl. July 2, 2020), unsupervised self-collection by a client created a situation that “greatly troubles and concerns the Court.” There, an attorney permitted the client to determine what ESI it would search for and produce. This process ran afoul […]
December 25, 2020
Published by Michael Berman at December 25, 2020
Categories
In In Re: Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (Bhr) Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2775, Master Docket No. 1:17-md-2775 (D. Md. Dec. 23, 2020), the Court denied a sanctions motion, attributing a failure to produce an inconsistent email to search parameters that were too narrow. The Court held that […]
November 27, 2020
Published by Michael Berman at November 27, 2020
Categories
In Optronic Tech, Inc. v. Ningbo Sunny Elec. Co., Ltd., 2020 WL 2838806 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020), sanctions were imposed against defense counsel, essentially because the court determined that trial counsel had attempted to hand off their Rule 26(g) obligations to their client’s inside counsel. There were several key points. Defense […]
May 12, 2020
Published by Michael Berman at May 12, 2020
Categories
I am pleased to announce the publication by the Maryland State Bar Association of M. Berman, et al., eds., ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION IN THE MARYLAND COURTS (2020). This book is intended as a practitioner’s handbook addressing primarily – but not exclusively – how ESI is addressed in Maryland State courts, comparing and […]
July 30, 2011
Published by Michael Berman at July 30, 2011
Categories
The American Bar Association has published M. Berman, C. Barton, and P. Grimm, eds., Managing E-Discovery and ESI: From Pre-Litigation Through Trial. The 761-page work features chapters by The Hon. Paul W. Grimm (D.Md.), The Hon. John M. Facciola (D.D.C.), The Hon. James C. Francis IV (S.D.N.Y.), and The Hon. Joseph F. […]
May 26, 2011
Published by Michael Berman at May 26, 2011
Categories
“Self-preservation” is the ESI equivalent of “do-it-yourself” home repair. If successful, it can save money. If not, it can lead to bigger problems. Recent decisions arising out of self-preservation disasters have posed the question of whether it is ever a viable technique to preserve and review ESI. A well-known commentator and The […]