The expense of modern civil litigation has risen dramatically, with document‑discovery battles often consuming a disproportionate share of legal budgets. Attorneys routinely spend weeks negotiating, filing motions, and attending hearings just to determine which records are relevant, and the associated attorney‑time costs can dwarf the ultimate value of the case.
A growing body of scholarship suggests that the principle behind baseball salary arbitration could be transplanted into the discovery arena. In that model, each side submits a final, non‑negotiable proposal, and an arbitrator selects one of the two without compromise, forcing parties to align their requests with realistic expectations.
How Baseball Arbitration Works in Discovery
Under the proposed framework, parties would each file a written settlement amount or a specific discovery request, and a neutral arbitrator would choose the more reasonable of the two. This eliminates the need for protracted negotiations and reduces the incentive to over‑reach or under‑deliver in discovery disputes.
The current discovery process is characterized by costly motions to compel, protective orders, and hearings that can stretch for months. By shifting these decisions to arbitration, the parties would be compelled to tailor their proposals more narrowly, fostering a culture of cooperation rather than confrontation.
Potential Benefits and Criticisms
Proponents argue that the method would generate substantial savings for both litigants and the judicial system. Fewer motions, reduced attorney time, and quicker resolution of disputes would lower overall litigation costs, allowing courts to allocate resources to more complex matters.
Critics warn that the approach could curtail judicial discretion, but the article contends that parties are better positioned than courts to assess the relevance and proportionality of discovery requests. The broad scope of permissible discovery remains unchanged, and any resistance to production still carries the burden of proving impropriety.
If adopted, baseball arbitration could reshape how document‑heavy cases are handled, encouraging settlements earlier in the process and diminishing the reliance on expensive procedural tactics. The ultimate effect would be a more efficient legal ecosystem that benefits clients, counsel, and the courts alike.