The plaintiff brought a motion seeking the court’s determination of which competing discovery plan should govern the litigation.
The defendants argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to impose a discovery plan or that the request was premature given the absence of a sufficient evidentiary record.
The court held that determining issues such as relevance, proportionality, and unity of interests in the discovery process required a more developed evidentiary foundation and that mediating disputes between competing plans without such evidence would be inappropriate.
The court emphasized that discovery planning is a dynamic process and that parties may later seek directions if disagreements affecting the conduct of the action arise.
The motion was effectively declined, with the court encouraging further negotiation and leaving open the possibility of future procedural directions.
