Sure, I can say it, but when an experienced judge like Judge Ralph Artigliere says cooperation in discovery is not capitulation, it means even more!

That’s what Judge Artigliere wrote about in his latest post on the EDRM blog (Cooperation in Discovery is Not Capitulation: It is a Sign of Strength, available here). Judge Artigliere references my blog post about the Fleury v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. case I covered last week as a springboard for the discussion and the frustration that Illinois Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole experienced with the lack of cooperation between the parties. To which Judge Artigliere says this:

“Judge Cole, a gentleman and jurist of good temperament, was less harsh than I would have been under the circumstances. Needless waste of money, time, and court resources should always be called out. Failure to cooperate on clearly justified discovery requests, without rancor, obfuscation, foot-dragging, delay, and deception, is not only required by the rules but is also in the best interest of the client and the administration of justice. Timely hearings and case resolutions are becoming increasingly difficult due to overly complicated discovery.”

“Less harsh than I would have been?” Wow. Considering how pointed Judge Cole’s comments were, I would love to have seen how Judge Artligiere would have handled a case like this if he were the judge! 😀

But, as Judge Artigliere states: “satisfying the judge is not the only reason a cooperative path through discovery is the best path. The benefits for both lawyers and clients are manifold.”

Judge Artigliere proceeds to go through those benefits, providing historical context with The Sedona Conference’s Cooperation Proclamation, which advocated for a collaborative approach to discovery, how the 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure further emphasized the need for cooperative discovery, the practical benefits of cooperation, and debunks the myth regarding cooperation and capitulation to show that cooperation in discovery is not capitulation! Check out his excellent article here – if enough lawyers read it, maybe we’ll see a few less cooperation disputes in the courtroom!

So, what do you think? How often do you have mobile device data in your litigation cases? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image created using GPT-4’s Image Creator Powered by DALL-E, using the term “two robot lawyers shaking hands in a courtroom”.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.