Freedom Line Blog

In the matter of much-needed patent litigation reform legislation before Congress, provisions targeting abuse of the pretrial discovery process constitute an underemphasized but critical component.

“Discovery,” for those who haven’t suffered the misfortune of practicing law or being sucked into litigation at some point in their lives, refers to the process by which litigating parties obtain relevant documents and information from opposing parties.  Typical methods of discovery include depositions (out-of-court testimony under oath), document requests, interrogatories and requests for admission (to obtain evidence and narrow the scope of questions to be litigated).

As anyone who has participated in the discovery process probably learned, it can become extremely burdensome in terms of time, money and logistical tedium.  Indeed, that’s why some parties abuse discovery in order to drive opposing parties toward settlement or withdrawal, even when those parties actually maintain the superior legal position.  Discovery abuse increases nuisance value and can be exploited as a tactic to harass and intimidate other parties.

Patent litigation is particularly subject to discovery abuse, because the issues litigated are typically complex, document-intensive and within the knowledge of enormous numbers of people.

For that reason, the discovery reform provisions of broader patent litigation reform are especially valuable.  The Innovation Act, which passed by a bipartisan 325 to 91 vote in the House of Representatives, moves toward a system in which discovery is limited to necessary information rather than endless fishing expeditions that lawyers exploit as a negotiating and intimidation tactic.

Importantly, however, the Innovation Act preserves important caveats to its reforms to preserve the interests of justice.  First, it explicitly allows that, “In special circumstances that would make denial of discovery a manifest injustice, the court may permit discovery, in addition to the discovery authorized under subsection (a), as necessary to prevent manifest injustice.”  Second, the Innovation Act allows that, “The parties may voluntarily consent to be excluded, in whole or in part, from the limitation of discovery provided under subsection (a) if at least one plaintiff and one defendant enter into a signed stipulation, to be filed with and signed by the court.”

Thus, the Innovation Act’s important discovery reform provisions can be superseded by court order or voluntary agreement of the parties.

Who could object to that common-sense reform?

Frivolous litigants and their attorneys, that’s who.  Reform of the pretrial discovery process would mean that such vexatious litigants would be less able to extract surrender or settlement from parties unwilling to subject themselves and their companies to the crushing burdens of discovery.  Any party acting in good faith, however, would obviously have nothing to fear.

Private arbitration and other forms of alternative dispute resolution provide important alternatives to traditional court litigation, and this week the U.S. Supreme Court delivered an important and welcome victory against trial lawyers and liberals who seek to undermine them.  The ruling is particularly notable for the fact that even liberal justices Breyer and Kagan joined in the 6-3 majority.

The case originated from an agreement between DirecTV and customers under which the parties agreed to a class action waiver and to resolve any disputes through private arbitration.  Although pro-trial lawyer California state law made class action waivers unenforceable, the Supreme Court had rightfully ruled in 2011 that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts such such state laws.  In the instant case, the California courts nevertheless attempted to circumvent that 2011 ruling, but the Supreme Court was having none of it.

For their part, liberal justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor did their best Bernie Sanders and Occupy Wall Street impression.  Their dissent is worth citing simply because of its self-evident reliance upon class warfare and leftist economic policy over objective, sober legal analysis:

It has become routine, in large part due to this Court’s decisions, for powerful economic enterprises to write into their form contracts with consumers and employees no-class-action arbitration clauses…  I would read it, as the California court did, to give the consumer, not the drafter, the benefit of the doubt.  Acknowledging the precedent so far set by the Court, I would take no further step to disarm consumers, leaving them without effective access to justice.”

First and foremost, Justice Ginsburg’s claim is incorrect as a matter of fact.  Arbitration and alternative dispute resolution don’t deprive anyone of justice.  They simply move the parties away from more expensive and tedious traditional litigation in overcrowded court system, and toward fair, speedier and less-burdensome resolution by an arbiter (usually an experienced judge) selected by both parties.  Second, Justice Ginsburg’s argument rests on sentiment and her own policy preference rather than law.

Accordingly, the Court’s ruling constitutes a critical loss for the powerful trial lawyers’ lobby, which essentially by definition makes it a critical victory for Americans more broadly.