Parties can and should resolve most discovery disputes without judicial intervention. Judge Alexakis will not consider any discovery-related dispute unless the movant has complied, in good faith, with the “meet and confer” requirement of Local Rule 37.2. This applies not only to motions to compel but also motions to quash discovery or motions for protective orders.

Any motion must state with specificity when and how the movant complied with Local Rule 37.2, such as through communications that took place in person, by video conference, or by phone. The exchange of emails or letters normally will not be sufficient to comply with Local Rule 37.2. If a party requests a meet-and-confer, the other party must respond promptly and participate in a meet-and-confer in a reasonable time.

If parties reach an impasse regarding the recovery of electronically stored information and/or the discovery of voluminous records from a database, server, computer, service provider or similar electronic storage facility, no discovery motion may be filed unless the parties first meet and confer to determine whether the requested material can be retrieved and, if so, the most effective way of doing so. This conference must take place in person, by videoconference, or by phone and must be attended by an IT representative of the party (or, for a putative class, an IT representative of plaintiffs’ counsel) that served the request, an IT representative of the facility to be searched, and an IT representative of the party that received the request. All participants should be prepared to discuss specifically the parameters of both the search and the facility.

All parties should be fully prepared to argue any discovery motion on the date it is presented. Judge Alexakis often will rule on discovery motions after hearing argument at the motion call and without additional briefing. If after hearing argument, Judge Alexakis believes that the motion requires briefing, she normally will set an expedited briefing schedule so that the matter can be resolved promptly.

Parties should promptly notify Judge Alexakis, via an email to the Courtroom Deputy, if they are withdrawing, or narrowing, any previously filed discovery motions.

Parties must issue discovery and respond to discovery as needed to meet the discovery deadlines, which means parties must plan ahead to avoid last-minute scrambles as deadlines approach. Any motion to extend time for the completion of discovery must be presented in writing (after conferral with the other side), be filed well in advance of the relevant discovery deadline, and demonstrate good cause for the extension.

Parties are reminded that there is no “order” in which discovery must occur. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(3). One party’s failure or inability to respond to discovery will not excuse another party’s prompt compliance.

The pendency of a motion, such as a motion to dismiss, does not operate as a stay of discovery absent Judge Alexakis’ explicit order. A motion to stay discovery must explain why a stay is appropriate for the specific case.

Judge Alexakis sets a limit of 25 requests for admission, pursuant to Rules 26(b)(2) and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Per “side” means parties represented by the same counsel. Any party may seek relief from this order by way of motion.

Objections to written discovery must state with specificity the grounds for objecting. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) (“The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B) (“For each item or category, the response must state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons.”). That is, the objecting party must offer a particularized reason tailored to each request. A generic assertion that a discovery request is, for example, “overbroad” or “unduly burdensome,” without accompanying detail, is inadequate. To sustain such an objection, Judge Alexakis almost certainly will need specific information from knowledgeable sources regarding the amount and nature of the effort required to comply with the request; the number of documents or amount of data likely to be generated by compliance; and the availability of alternative sources of information.