<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
   <channel>
      <title>Resolving Discovery Disputes - It Is Too Relevant! - Comments</title>
      <link>http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/</link>
      <description>California Discovery Referee &amp; Mediator</description>
      <language>en</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2012</copyright>
      <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 06:57:44 -0800</lastBuildDate>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 06:57:44 -0800</pubDate>
      <generator>http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/?v=4.32-en</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

      
      <item>
         <title>Mike R-</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>Your last sentence sums up the whole matter.  <br />
   "If you can articulate [your reason] then you should be able to discover it."</p>

<p>The corollary, of course, is that if you can NOTarticulate a reason for your request (or if you refuse to do so in response to a reasonable request during, for example, the meet-and-confer) then you have no right to discover.</p>

<p>The other aspect that should be factored into your analysis above is proportionality.  I may be able to articulate a reason for my request but if it will cost $1 million for you to comply and we're only arguing over $10,000, my request is disproportionate and will be rejected regardless of my ability to explain the reason.</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/objections/it-is-too-relevant/#23618</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/objections/it-is-too-relevant/#23618</guid>
         <category domain="http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/">Abuse</category><category domain="http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/45-day-rule">Compel Further Responses</category><category domain="http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/">Depositions</category><category domain="http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/">Interrogatories</category><category domain="http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/">Motions</category><category domain="http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/45-day-rule">Motions to Compel</category><category domain="http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/">Objections</category><category domain="http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/">Request for Admissions</category><category domain="http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/">Request for Production of documents</category><category domain="http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/">Sanctions</category>
         <pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:10:00 -0800</pubDate>
         <dc:creator>Katherine Gallo</dc:creator>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Katherine Gallo</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>Proportionality is a big factor especially with the onset of e-discovery.  Though the information may be relevant the cost of retrieval may override your right to the information.  At that point a responding party should be proactive and seek either a modification of the request or go to court and seek a protective order.  The case on point is  Mead Reinsurance Co. v. Superior Court (1986) CA3d 313.  </p>]]></description>
         <link>http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/objections/it-is-too-relevant/#24376</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/objections/it-is-too-relevant/#24376</guid>
         <category domain="http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/">Abuse</category><category domain="http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/45-day-rule">Compel Further Responses</category><category domain="http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/">Depositions</category><category domain="http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/">Interrogatories</category><category domain="http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/">Motions</category><category domain="http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/45-day-rule">Motions to Compel</category><category domain="http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/">Objections</category><category domain="http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/">Request for Admissions</category><category domain="http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/">Request for Production of documents</category><category domain="http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/">Sanctions</category>
         <pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:10:00 -0800</pubDate>
         <dc:creator>Katherine Gallo</dc:creator>
      </item>
      
   </channel>
</rss>
