All judges in the District of Delaware have implemented discovery dispute procedures.
Under the procedures, instead of the parties engaging in lengthy briefing and the Court issuing a detailed opinion on a discovery issue—a process can take months—they meet-and-confer and raise it with the Court. The Court then schedules a quick hearing and sets deadlines for short discovery dispute letters from the parties.
After the Court receives the parties' letters, it either issues a short "oral order" on the docket resolving the dispute, or issues an order at the hearing, with the transcript serving as the opinion. This saves time for everyone involved, and is one of the methods that the Court uses to manage its incredibly busy docket.
In addition to the usual discovery dispute procedures, the Court has sometimes permitted parties to call chambers to raise a dispute about a currently-in-progress deposition (but note that calling chambers for other reasons can be a bad move), and some of the judges have specific procedures for certain types of motions.
In most instances, though, if the parties have a dispute about discovery, the right answer is to use one of those two procedures.
Case in Point: Judge Fallon Rejects Letter Seeking "Guidance" On Deposition Conduct
Earlier this month, the parties in Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., C.A. No. 17-00184-JFB-SRF (D. Del.) evidently got into a dispute over the proper form of deposition objections, and the Defendant filed a letter asking for "the Court's guidance on proper objections" at upcoming depositions.
Defendant's letter listed out various instances of allegedly improper objections, but did not request any relief (other than "guidance"). The Court refused:
ORAL ORDER: The court having considered the parties' letter submissions regarding Defendant's request for "guidance from the Court to try to ensure fair and complete depositions," . . . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's request is DENIED as a request for an advisory opinion. . . . If it is not practical for the parties to contact the Court during the deposition to seek a ruling on a pending objection, the parties may follow the Court's standard discovery dispute procedures and/or procedures for filing a Rule 37 motion to request specific relief such as cost shifting or supplemental depositions. . . . In the exercise of its broad discretion in discovery matters, the Court declines to blur the lines between decisions granting specific relief and those offering advisory opinions of the sort requested by Defendant in this instance.
So, there you have it: if you need guidance from the Court on a discovery issue, don't just file a letter—follow the Court's procedures.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
