The Discovery Dispute And Its Effect On The Status As A Non Party

2011 Words Dec 1st, 2016 9 Pages
For the reasons stated in Part II(A), supra, Avpro enters this discovery dispute with a distinct advantage due to its status as a non-party. Independent of its status as a non-party, the electronic discovery that 50NL seeks from Avpro would otherwise be undiscoverable because Avpro’s need for the discovery does not outweigh the burden and cost of locating, retrieving, and producing the information. Md. Rule 2-402(b)(2). Moreover, the fact that 50NL’s need for the requested discovery is de minimis, the burden and costs imposed on Avpro are exorbitant, all in conjunction with the fact that Avpro is a non-party to the underlying litigation, all indicate that this Court should deny 50NL’s motion to compel.
Unfortunately, while Md. Rule 2-402(b)(2) clearly sets for the relevant test with regard to analyzing a motion to compel under these circumstances, the Maryland authorities are silent as to the particular factors used to define the terms “undue burden,” “undue cost.” and “need for discovery” as those terms are used in Md. Rule 2-402(b)(2). Nevertheless, a series of factors have arisen from courts interpreting the largely analogous Federal Rules that should guide this Court’s analysis in determining the relative burdens, costs, and needs of the parties with respect to this discovery dispute. As such, these widely accepted factors include:
(1) the specificity of the discovery requests; (2) the likelihood of discovering critical information; (3) the availability of such…

Related Documents