that the element of good faith in dealings between counsel “is central to the entire discovery process,” id. at 61, 926 A.2d at 749, 2007 WL 1558524 at **11-12 stated, in discussing the discovery tools used to secure information about expert witnesses, that “the logistics of [interrogatories and depositions] should be the subject of agreement, in order to forestall a waste of time and resources on the part of both litigants and counsel.” Id. at 57, 926 A.2d at 747, 2007 WL 1558524 at **9-10. Copying documents is a “related act” within the meaning of Rule 2-422(c). Unless otherwise ordered, it is the responsibility of the requesting party, not the producing party, to pay the expense of making copies. See Clever View Investments, Ltd. v. Oshatz, 233 F.R.D. 393, 394 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (<HOLDING>); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, supra, at §
holding that citys policy need not be unconstitutional per se but need only cause a constitutional violation holding that producing party need only make requested documents available for inspection and need not pay for copying costs holding that the jury need only decide the ultimate issue of intentional discrimination and usually need not make findings on the prima facie case or whether the defendants explanation is pretextual holding an agency need not demonstrate that all responsive documents were found and that no other relevant documents could possibly exist holding that copying costs are taxable if they are necessary to make copies of information required to be produced and not incurred just to make copies for the convenience of the producing party