Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 08 APRIL 2024

Appropriateness Of Discovery On Discovery

Greenberg Traurig
Greenberg Traurig
Contributor
Greenberg Traurig

Greenberg Traurig

Greenberg Traurig, LLP has approximately 3,200 lawyers across 51 locations in the United States,...

View firm profile
Explore more from Greenberg Traurig

The parties engaged in discovery, which was contentious from the start and replete with motion practice.

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

In Adamson v Pierce County et al., the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled on defendants' motion for protective order (Motion), where defendants requested the court limit the scope of various 30(b)(6) deposition topics, addressed the appropriateness of "discovery on discovery" as a deposition topic, and reminded attorneys that the discovery process is expected to be a cooperative one, and meet-and-confer obligations are not to be taken lightly.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of an investigation by the Pierce County Prosecutor's Office in 2020 and shutdowns of the Pierce County Sheriff's Department's Special Investigation Unit (SIU) – a unit dedicated to investigating narcotics and enforcing anti-vice laws in Pierce County, Washington. Plaintiffs, nine Pierce County Sheriff's Department deputies, were assigned to the SIU and subsequently included on the Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney's Office Brady/Potential Impeachment Evidence

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from