Motion Practice/Discovery

I have researched and drafted countless hundreds of motions of every imaginable type over my thirteen years in practice: emergency motions, motions to enforce judgment, motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, motions for judgment on pleadings, motions to strike, vacate, disqualify, motions for removal, change of venue, challenging personal jurisdiction, motions in limine, motions to amend complaints, motions to exclude, motions to seal, motions for leave to file amended discovery, and motions for sanctions, among many others, along with memoranda of law in support as well as responses, replies and sur-replies to same.

Memoranda of law, or memoranda of points and authorities, are filed in most states in support of motions, but some northeastern jurisdictions require legal arguments to be supported by an affidavit written by counsel on behalf of the client, which would need to come from the attorney of record.

A significant motion, such as a motion to dismiss or a motion for removal, would best be done with the legally relevant portion of the electronic record to ensure a filing that is likely to prevail, and in virtually every case, a motion for summary judgment or its response will require in essence the entire electronic record, and other than exceptionally simple, small-claims type cases, require a number of days in advance to draft.

Discovery, as the longest and often the most determinative phase of the litigation process, has undergone real change in recent years. Long gone are the days when judges will tolerate dilatory practices such as 32 boilerplate responses to the plaintiff’s requests that deny the plaintiff’s allegations as unduly burdensome, overly broad, ambiguous, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Any attorney not intimately familiar with the language of Rule 26(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the allegiance to it triers of fact are in the habit of practicing does so at her own risk.

Moreover, in federal matters and arbitrations involving complex litigation, Sedona-guided principles ensuring proper procedures for integrity of data collection, proportionality, evidence preservation, avoiding spoliation, time-stamping, and other aspects of e-discovery need to be met, often with computer forensics.

Every practitioner brings his or her own approach to discovery, and the scope of the requests and of the responses are often case-dependent. I bring an extensive and diverse body of work to the endeavor and am happy to provide whatever the lead attorney deems necessary, relevant and warranted to the crafting of that discovery.

That said, receiving a hard copy of the entire case file (or at the very least, that part of the record likely to lead to admissible evidence) is a necessary first step, and a sample of recent discovery requests/responses is often helpful in ensuring you receive what you are looking for.