ABSTRACT
Discovery disputes are prevalent in pretrial practice but are largely absent from law-school casebooks and the decisions of the Supreme Court. The lack of formal appellate decisions contributes to the view that discovery functions like civil litigation’s Wild West without meaningful law development or error correction. But, by looking at every reference to ‘discovery’ in the Roberts Court’s jurisprudence and hundreds of district courts’ review of magistrate judges’ discovery orders, this Article identifies how this story leaves out a few critical developments.
First, focusing on the lack of formal appellate decisions misses how discovery is actually extensively featured in the Roberts Court’s decisions. For example, Twombly and Iqbal changed the pleading standard in federal court because of concerns about the ostensible cost of discovery. And there are dozens of other examples in which fears about discovery are used to justify decisions about jurisdiction, interbranch conflicts, First Amendment challenges, the reach of certain statutes, and other issues. In this way, discovery acts like ‘dark matter’, which is most easily identified by its effect on other areas of law.
Second, the assumption that discovery is beset by a lack of error correction and law clarification because of the absence of formal appellate guidance fails to recognize the normative guidance provided by the Court’s dark-matter discovery and the quasi-appellate review following from the rise of magistrate judges as the frontline managers of discovery. To the former, this Article canvases almost fifty trial-level courts’ decisions that reference the discovery dicta in Twombly and Iqbal to decide discovery disputes. To the latter, district judges routinely review magistrate judges’ discovery decisions, and this Article highlights several examples in which they correct unjust applications of the law or clarify important doctrinal questions.
In this way, one sees how the functions of appellate review have been channeled in ways consistent with institutional expertise instead of formal judicial hierarchy. The trial-level judges are given primary responsibility for the management of discovery disputes, including error correction and law clarification, by having district judges review the decisions of magistrate judges. At the other end of the spectrum, the Roberts Court has used its bully pulpit to make pronouncements about the normative tradeoffs implicated by common discovery disputes, which has some – but not necessarily a great deal – of traction. While this jury-rigged system largely seems to be working, it has not been explicitly identified, and several factors are poised to disrupt the existing equilibrium.
Endo, Seth Katsuya, Discovery Dark Matter (April 19, 2023).
Leave a Reply