Extract from Kelly Twigger’s article “#CaseoftheWeek Episode 69: 6 Proportionality Factors for Scope of Discovery”
In episode 69 of Case of the Week, we discuss a District Court’s analysis of the six proportionality factors in determining the scope of discovery to be reviewed and produced. The decision we are analyzing comes from United States Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison on Edwards v. McDermott Int’l, Inc., 2022 WL 1568279 (S.D. Tex. 2022) from May 18, 2022.
Good morning and welcome to episode 69 of our Case of the Week series published in partnership with ACEDS. My name is Kelly Twigger, I am the CEO and founder of eDiscovery Assistant, as well as the principal at ESI Attorneys, and I am very happy to be here with you today. Thank you so much for joining me.
As you know, each week we choose a recent decision from our eDiscovery Assistant case law database and highlight key issues for what that means for you, your clients, your practice, and how to use those strategically.
Today’s case is actually going to be a pretty quick one, but it has some great takeaways from it as far as proportionality is concerned. Our decision comes to us from the class action securities fraud case titled Edwards v. McDermott Int’l, Inc. Today’s decision is from May 18th, 2022, written by United States Magistrate Judge Andrew Edison. Judge Edison has eight other decisions included in the eDiscovery Assistant database. He’s written thoughtfully on some key eDiscovery issues, so it’s worth taking a look at those if you’re in front of Judge Edison.
