Discovery Reform: S.B. 224 (2019)
REQUIREMENT OF PROPORTIONALITY Requires that parties may discover any relevant
REQUIREMENT OF PROPORTIONALITY
Requires that parties may discover any relevant matter, not privileged, as described in the act, provided that the matter is proportional to the needs of the case considering several factors described within the act.
LIMITS ON FREQUENCY OR EXTENT OF DISCOVERY AND ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION
Requires that the court limit the frequency or extent of discovery if it determines that certain factors exist. Additionally, a party does not need to provide discovery of electronically stored information if the source of the information is not reasonably accessible because of an undue burden or cost. Even if a showing of undue burden or cost is made, the court may order and specify the conditions for the discovery if the requesting party shows good cause.
LIMITS ON PRIVILEGED INFORMATION AND TRIAL PREPARATION MATERIALS
If information produced is subject to a claim of privilege or protection as trial preparation material, the claiming party may notify any receiving party of the claim and the basis for it. A notified party is required to return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and may present it under seal to the court for claim determination. Additionally, the party shall take steps to retrieve any information disclosed prior to notification, shall preserve the information until the claim is resolved, and shall not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved. An attorney who receives privileged information involving an adverse or third party and who has reasonable cause to believe that the information was wrongfully obtained shall not read the information, shall promptly notify the other attorney to return the information, and shall delete and take reasonable measures to assure that the information is inaccessible. An attorney notified has the obligation to preserve the information. The production of privileged or protected trial preparation materials is not a waiver of the privilege or protection from discovery in the proceeding.
LIMITS ON INTERROGATORIES AND DEPOSITIONS
Limits the number of written interrogatories that may be served upon a party to 25, including all discrete subparts. For oral or written depositions, leave of court is required if the deponent is confined in prison or the parties have not stipulated to a deposition and: the deposition would result in more than 10 depositions being taken by the plaintiffs, or by the defendants, or by the third-party defendants; the deponent has already been deposed in the case; or the plaintiff seeks a deposition prior to the expiration of 30 days after the service of the summons and petition upon any defendant, except leave is not required if a defendant has served a notice of taking deposition or otherwise sought discovery. Additionally, limits the length of any oral deposition to one day of seven hours, provided that the court may order additional time for any deposition under certain circumstances. The court is permitted to impose sanctions on persons who impede, delay, or otherwise frustrate the fair examination of a deponent.
LIMITS ON REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
Provides that a party may serve a request to produce and permit the requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample designated documents, electronically stored information, or any designated tangible things. Requests may specify that electronically stored information be produced in native format. Objections to part of a request shall specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.
LIMITS ON REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Limits the number of written requests for admission that may be served upon a party to 25 without leave of the court or stipulation of the parties. However, this limitation shall not apply to requests regarding the genuineness of documents.
New Poll Finds Strong Bipartisan Support for Government Action vs. Litigation When it Comes to Handling the COVID-19 Pandemic
While COVID-19 relief efforts stall in Congress, public support for aid to small businesses and others impacted by the pandemic remains high. According to a new survey released today by […]
Missouri Supreme Court declines to review billion-dollar award against Johnson & Johnson baby powder
Juliette Fairley of the St. Louis Record reports on the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision not to review a $2 billion verdict.
ATRA President Tiger Joyce penned an op-ed for Law360 on the surge of COVID-19-related lawsuits targeting the insurance industry.
ATRA praises the passage of HB 6030 in Michigan, enacting COVID-19 liability protections.
ATRA’s statement on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s ruling in Hammons v. Ethicon to allow an out-of-state lawsuit to continue, openly defying SCOTUS precedent.