Discovery

Objections 2. Principles for the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information in Civil Cases, published on the Court’s website.); i. Whether the parties unanimously consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge; j. Whether the parties jointly request an early settlement or ADR conference; and k. The applicability and propriety of the form of Stipulated Order referenced in L.R. 104.13. Unless justice requires otherwise, the Court will approve reasonable adjustments to the deadlines set forth in Section VIII of the Local Rules when (1) all parties agree to the adjustments; (2) a case involves particularly complex technologies or a large number of patents; (3) the parties include non-U.S. entities or individuals; or (4) a substantial portion of the testimonial or documentary evidence will require translation to English. RULE 803.

DISCOVERY 1.

Commencement Subject to L.R. 803.2, discovery shall be conducted in accordance with L.R. 104 and shall not commence until the issuance of a Scheduling Order. 2. Objections Except as provided in this Rule or as otherwise ordered, it shall not be a ground for objecting to an opposing party’s discovery request (e.g., interrogatory, document request, request for admission, deposition question) that the discovery request or disclosure requirement is premature in light of, or otherwise conflicts with, Section VIII of the Local Rules. A party may object, however, to responding to the following categories of discovery requests on the ground that they are premature in light of the timetable provided in Section VIII of the Local Rules: a. b. c. Requests seeking to elicit a party’s claim construction position; Requests seeking to elicit from the patent claimant a comparison of the asserted claims and the accused apparatus, product, device, process, method, act, or other instrumentality; Requests seeking to elicit from an accused infringer a comparison of the asserted claims and the prior art; and U.S. District Court of Maryland Local Rules (December 1, 2025) 88