Extract from David Horrigan’s article “Activist Judges? University of Florida Examines E-Discovery—and the Role of Judges in It”
Just how active should judges be in the e-discovery process? It’s something that’s been pondered for years—perhaps most notably in the debates leading up to the 2015 e-discovery amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Judges are often the guardians of justice for society. Thus, it’s reasonable to ask whether they should be forced to waste their time with games of rock-paper-scissors to settle discovery disputes between litigants in overzealous combat.
On the other hand, discovery is arguably the most important part of litigation. Shouldn’t judges undertake an active role?
By the way, that rock-paper-scissors reference is, quite sadly, a true story from an actual case, as we’ll see below.
In a series of law review articles in the University of Florida Levin College of Law’s Florida Law Review, Florida Law Review Forum, and at its upcoming Eighth Annual E-Discovery Conference on March 18, the law school is examining the role of e-discovery in the legal system. One of the articles, Activist Judges?: Technology, Rule 1, and the Limits of Judge Matthewman’s New Paradigm for E-Discovery, written by this author, examines the role of judges as technology has changed the legal landscape of discovery.
