Extract from Tim Rollins’ article “Are Activist Judges a Thing (in E-Discovery)?”
Every so often, the news junkies among us are treated to a politician scoring points by decrying “activist judges” who (allegedly) legislate from the bench, moving beyond the intent or the letter of the law with a controversial case ruling. Depending on who issues the outcry, they’re accused of moving the clock backward or forward to some version of America that the speaker disagrees with.
Fortunately, the Exterro blog (and I) attempt to avoid politics, instead looking at the technical and/or logistical issues of e-discovery. And in that realm, the notion of judicial activism arises from the language of Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which reads:
These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts, except as stated in Rule 81. They should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.
