Step One: Review the following fact pattern:

Patterson sues Danderson's Restaurant in federal court after she has an allergic reaction to eating some of their fried fish. Patterson has nut allergies. She contends that there was some type of nut in the fried fish, or in the preparation of the fish, that was not disclosed by the restaurant.

In discovery, she seeks the ingredients for the fried fish and an explanation of how the fried fish is made to determine if there is any intentional or accidental exposure to nut products. She also seeks any and all information about prior complaints or incidents of customers having allergic reactions to Danderson's food.

Danderson's recipe and preparation process is secret, proprietary information that has only been disclosed to a handful of key Danderson's employees. Danderson's fears that if the information becomes public, others will copy the recipe and their preparation process and it will harm Danderson's market share since their fried fish is well-known as the best in the region. Danderson's objects to the request on proportionality grounds, claiming that it is an undue burden.

Danderson's objects to the requests for customer complaints or incidents on relevancy and proportionality grounds. It notes that it has multiple locations in three different states, and information about customer complaints is not centralized in one location.

Step Two: Choose whether you want to represent Patterson or Danderson's and then submit a post that answers the following questions:

• What is your client's underlying interest in this dispute? In other words, what is Patterson really looking for in her requests, and what is Danderson's really trying to protect or address in their objections?
• What result do you think would satisfy your client's interests and the opposing party's interest?
• What possible solutions would you propose to the opposing party to try to obtain this result?