Although a party receiving written discovery must generally answer the requests and produce responsive documents, certain requests may be subject to various objections. An objection (s) to discovery is an assertion that a question or request is improper for a specific reason or the response to the same is protected from disclosure.
Blanket, unsupported objections that a discovery request is “vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome” are, by themselves, meaningless, and disregarded by the Court. A party objecting on these bases must explain the specific and particular ways in which a request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome. Fed. R. Civ. P. See
Furthermore, the Discovery Act does not authorize such a preamble or general objections. Instead the Discovery Act requires the party to respond in writing to each interrogatory, request for production of document and request for admission whether it is a response or an objection.
An objection that a discovery request is “not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence” is an outdated type of objection, as that language no longer defines the scope of discovery in federal court. The current
The most common discovery objection our lawyers see is the objection that the interrogatories are not relevant to the litigation or are too burdens...
You should draft interrogatories contention interrogatories and other interrogatories seeking specific responses narrowly. But a big part of interr...
General objections are a list of general objections that presumably apply to all responses to the discovery requests. General objections are almost...
During discovery, the parties work to obtain all necessary information and/or documents to either pursue the case, if the party is the plaintiff, or defend the case, if the party is the defendant.
Additionally, a party cannot merely list the objections and move on. Rather, more is required.
The most common discovery objection our lawyers see is the objection that the interrogatories are not relevant to the litigation or are too burdensome to answer. Another objection our attorneys see frequently because we asked detailed questions that pin down defendants is that the request calls for a legal conclusion. The legal conclusion objection is rarely a valid objection.
Plaintiff objects because the identification, photocopying, and production of the requested documents would be oppressively burdensome and costly. The information or documents will be made available for review at its storage location during business hours at a mutually convenient time. Alternatively, upon request the plaintiff will provide the defendant with an estimate of what it would cost to procure and produce these documents and the parties can agree on the cost of such a production. (This is usually a defendant's objection, actually. Federal Rule 26 (g), requiring parties to consider discovery burdens and benefits before requesting discovery or responding or objecting to discovery requests and to certify that their discovery requests, responses, and objections meet the rule requirements.)
Federal Rule 33 (b) (4) emphasizes that the "grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure."
Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory because it calls for the plaintiff to make a legal conclusion. [Don't go crazy with this one either. “An interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, but the court may order that the interrogatory need not be answered until designated discovery is complete, or until a pretrial conference or some other time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 (a) (2).]
Under Maryland law, this onus is on the party receiving the objection to force the issue. Just like you can take advantage of lazy or distracted lawyers by forcing answers to your interrogatories, you can also gain an advantage by not answering interrogatories that are arguably objectionable. The filing of timely discovery objections defers the requirement to answer the question until the defendant objects to your objections.
Generally, interrogatories are objectionable if they seek information that is not within the scope of discovery as defined in Maryland Rule 402 or Federal Rule 26 (b). These are typically requests that are not relevant, unduly burdensome, broad, vague, privileged. or protected by the work product doctrine. Sample interrogatories in all types of ...
Plaintiff objects to the entirety of this request because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Instead, it was filed for the purpose of harassing, oppressing, embarrassing and annoying woman a who everyone agrees is a victim by seeking discovery of matters that have zero relevance to this lawsuit. [This is probably a little much.]
A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection , copying , testing , or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.
A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.
ANSWER: A fictional document. A non-existent objection neither based in statutory authority nor found in case law. A statement by a party during the discovery phase that they will neither be held to the Code of Civil Procedure nor the rules of evidence.
Furthermore, the Discovery Act does not authorize such a preamble or general objections. Instead the Discovery Act requires the party to respond in writing to each interrogatory, request for production of document and request for admission whether it is a response or an objection. The relevant code sections demonstrating a party’s obligations in responding to these discovery devices are below with emphasis added:
As can be seen from the relevant statutes regarding responding to interrogatories, requests for production of documents and requests for admissions, a party cannot use a general objection to protect them like an umbrella from their own failure to raise appropriate objections to specific questions. Once the general objection is disregarded, a responding party’s objections to the specific interrogatory or request is either made, or the objections are deemed waived.