During the discovery process, an attorney attempts to obtain information to help present a case and position their argument. Discovery is used in all types of litigation, such as domestic hearings, noncompete cases, defamation suits, and real estate disputes, to name just a few examples. Typically, discovery includes interrogatories, deposition, request for production of documents, and request for admission. It can be a long and tedious process, with much of it occurring outside of the courtroom.
Going through discovery is a bit like navigating a minefield. The process can be very difficult, for all parties involved. In this post, we’ll talk about the ins and outs of discovery objections.
Discovery is a double-edged sword. The process can bring evidence to light that can uncover the truth in a case. At the same time, it’s also possible to weaponize discovery. Attorneys might find critical evidence in the other side’s communications, for example.
In either situation, discovery is arguably the most powerful tool that an attorney has in their arsenal. This is because it involves uncovering and displaying direct evidence that they can then use to buttress their case. For example, in a car accident case, an opposing attorney may argue that a driver was on their cell phone at the time of the collision. The discovery process brings that type of information to the surface (e.g., a statement from the cell provider) to influence the final outcome of a case or perhaps reach a settlement.
While discovery is a standard part of litigation, attorneys do have the right to discovery objections in certain situations. That said, objecting isn’t quite as easy as it used to be. In recent years, judges have been cracking down and making it harder for attorneys to object. In most cases, attorneys need to have a clear reason for objecting.
Of course, not every run-of-the-mill objection will pass the smell test. With this in mind, here are a few of the times when this strategy may be acceptable.
In some cases, the plaintiff may object because the claim is too broad and not directly related to uncovering evidence. This might fly, as long as they can explain why.
Check out Panola Land Buyers Ass’n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559 (11th Cir. 1985) for further insight into this example.
It is also possible to request discovery objections based on the grounds that the request is irrelevant. The objection must include an explanation as to why the request lacks relevance.
One famous case where this issue arose is Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351-52 (1978).
Attorneys may also object when certain information is public knowledge. In such cases as this, an objection could be used to protect a client from embarrassment. In other instances, it could be made to prevent an opposing attorney from drawing attention to a certain detail.
In some cases, it can be beneficial to object if the interrogatory forces a plaintiff to provide a conclusion about a particular legal matter that could result in an admission.
Some information is protected by attorney–client privilege. As such, it may not be legally permissible to make the information public in a courtroom environment. In this type of scenario, an attorney may object to the client answering in order to preserve attorney–client privilege.
An attorney may ask for evidence that requires procuring certain documents or information. After that, opposing counsel may object and request both parties to agree on the cost and process of producing documents for use in court.
Depending on the issue, it might not be fair to force a client to spend tons of money producing documents for a matter that’s more or less trivial.
Objecting to a discovery request can lead to a court loss. Most of the time, attorneys are encouraged to avoid objecting unless the situation absolutely calls for interference.
Here are some general guidelines to consider when objecting to discovery requests in court.
Just because a situation allows for objection, it doesn’t necessarily mean that you should object. Oftentimes, objection requests get denied. This is especially true early on in a hearing. Truth be told, certain discovery objections often look as though they are obstructive or overly defensive in nature. Because of this, attempting to use this strategy may irritate a judge and benefit the other party.
An effective attorney always has their eyes set on the end goal. Of course, that goal is an obvious one: winning the case.
Objecting to a discovery request will almost certainly have an impact on the case in one way or another. Either it’s going to help the other party or it’s going to shield your client from information that could damage their chances of winning.
That said, certain questions warrant an answer even if they are damaging. One of the best skills that an attorney can have is weighing a question when it comes up and determining the potential impact of the answer.
Attorneys need to abide by certain restrictions outlined in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when objecting to discovery requests.
Rule 33 says that a responding party must answer or object to interrogatory requests within 30 days of receiving them. The general rule of thumb is to respond to an objection as quickly as possible. Failure to respond within 30 days can result in court sanctions—hurting the attorney’s reputation and bottom line.
Rule 34 mandates that responding parties have specific grounds for objecting to a discovery request. In addition, the rule requires responding parties to state whether responsive materials have not been presented.
As an example, Rule 34 was famously upheld in Fischer v. Forrest, where Magistrate Judge Peck ordered defendants to revise their discovery objections under the grounds that the responses were “meaningless boilerplate” that failed to outline the nature of the objections.
Responding to a discovery request for physical evidence is one thing. It can be much harder with eDiscovery, when there is a mountain of digital evidence to sort through. In order to respond to an eDiscovery request in a timely manner and avoid court sanctions, attorneys need to be able to quickly access and sort through information. Without the right tools in place, this is a painstaking process at best—and an impossible one at worst.
Luckily, attorneys and litigation support teams aren’t on their own. By investing in a robust and modern eDiscovery management platform, it becomes that much easier to take care of the entire process. Venio offers one of the most comprehensive eDiscovery solutions on the market. This platform provides end-to-end eDiscovery management for processing, early case assessment (ECA), legal analysis, review, and production.
By using Venio, legal teams can spend more time analyzing whether to answer or object to an eDiscovery request, instead of rapidly combing through information and analyzing it piece by piece. To witness the transformative nature of Venio and improve your organization’s eDiscovery prowess, request a demo today.
This post was written by Justin Reynolds. Justin is a freelance writer who enjoys telling stories about how technology, science, and creativity can help workers be more productive. In his spare time, he likes seeing or playing live music, hiking, and traveling.