Notably, your opponent must also state whether any responsive information is being withheld on the basis of an objection. Generally, all of these rules state that if your opponent objects to a discovery request, and is not going to fully respond to a discovery request, that he or she must state with specificity the reasons for objection and shall answer/admit/respond to the extent the discovery request is not objectionable. Rules 33 (governing interrogatories), 34 (governing requests for production) and 36 (governing requests for admission) all provide some guidance for how your opponent should respond to your written discovery. To avoid this problem, it is imperative that you and your attorney address the situation head on, as soon as practicable after receiving the improper objections. If you and your attorney do not address this improper discovery tactic head on, your opponent will effectively shield each and every one of his discovery responses behind these broad objections, making his responses meaningless. Your opponent will then probably state that he is limiting his discovery responses subject to the foregoing objections. Written discovery improperly “seeks information protected by the attorney client and/or work product privilege”.Written discovery is “not appropriately limited in time”.Written discovery is not “relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”.But what if your opponent refuses to fully respond to your written discovery and instead makes broad objections to the discovery? Common broad objections include: In our last blog we discussed the different types of written discovery (interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission) and how the discovery is to be drafted and responded to.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |