Another Excellent Effort by Judge Paul Grimm

Federal Magistrate Judge Paul Grimm of Maryland penned another magnum opinion delivering a pointed, scholarly and thoughtful exploration of the biggest abuses plaguing discovery.  Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Services Co, No. 1:08-CV-00273-CCB (D. Maryland 10/15/2008) isn't as daunting as Grimm's opus in Lorraine v. Markel or as eye-opening as his Victor Stanley v. Creative Pipe, but it has the distinction of being the first reported case to laud The Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation, a manifesto that's more than just a pipe dream because it comes coupled with a genuine commitment to develop the tools to make it work.  More, Mancia forecefully articulates the impetus for courts to use sanctions to both punish and deter boilerplate requests and objection--a specie of lax lawyering that's long overdue for extinction.

I don't know who squealed, but Judge Grimm knows that by rationalizing the use of boilerplate as "zealous advocacy," it's been a guilt-free cha-cha-cha to let the "zeal" thing crowd out the "officer of the court" thing.  He reminds us that lawyers owe a duty to something more important and noble than victory, and that when we serve a request or make an objection, we are giving our word that we looked before we leapt. 

Just more high-minded tosh that poses no threat to business as usual?  Don't bet on it.  You can pull the mask off that ol' Lone Ranger, but you don't mess around with Grimm. 

Be sure to read Mancia before you reflexively trot out "any," "all," "overly broad" or "unduly burdensome" in your next discovery request or response.  Take a moment to scrutinize the requests and objections at issue in Mancia, then ask yourself, "Is my work really that much different?"