Craig W. Chaney | Reed Smith
As opposing parties navigate the frightening process of discovery, “reasonableness” often lurks like an elusive spirit. While each party conjures their own version of what’s reasonable, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are summoned to provide guidance and temper disputes. The Rules have been repeatedly amended to help ensure that reasonableness is more than an apparition.
For example, Federal Rule 1 calls upon both litigants and the court to exorcise excessive costs and delays, while Rule 37 warns of spooky consequences if parties act like witches or if crucial evidence vanishes. As courts rely on the Federal Rules’ principles, all parties must work together, or risk their case becoming haunted by discovery disputes born of evil intentions or trickery.
For a more in-depth analysis of the challenges of reasonableness in discovery and related references in the Federal Rules, please see The Challenge of Reasonableness in Discovery by my colleague Patricia Antezana.
…the adversarial process of litigation creates the potential for numerous options across a subjective scale of reasonableness. Nevertheless, parties are obligated to use their best efforts to act reasonably in discovery, especially as the court system remains heavily burdened with discovery disputes. Parties must cooperate to meet the challenge of reasonableness that has been entrenched in litigation for more than 40 years.
When one of your cases is in need of a construction expert, estimates, insurance appraisal or umpire services in defect or insurance disputes – please call Advise & Consult, Inc. at 888.684.8305, or email experts@adviseandconsult.net.