Ca. Common Objections to Discovery Requests in Family Law

This folio provides a cheat sheet for discovery objections for lawyers.

Elsewhere on this website, nosotros talk about the importance of forcing defendants to provide meaningful answers to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and other discovery responses and requests. If we do not hold defendants' feet to the burn down, we toss away a powerful tool to box in defendants for trial -- and providing evidence that we are not giving the case the care and attending it deserves.

But this is an adversarial procedure. There are times when yous should not requite complete answers to an interrogatory considering the question is objectionable. Practically, discovery objections as well allow you lot to avoid answering difficult questions.

Under Maryland law, this onus is on the party receiving the objection to forcefulness the issue. Just like you tin can accept reward 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 reply the question until the defendant objects to your objections.

Yous need to exist articulate in your objections or risk waving them. Federal Dominion 33(b)(4) emphasizes that the "grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must exist stated with specificity. Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good crusade, excuses the failure."

Generally, interrogatories are objectionable if they seek data that is not within the telescopic of discovery as defined in Maryland Dominion 402 or Federal Rule 26(b). These are typically requests that are not relevant, unduly burdensome, broad, vague, privileged. or protected past the work product doctrine.

• Sample interrogatories in all types of personal injury, medical malpractice, and wrongful decease cases.
• More sample discovery

List of Sample Objections

Sometimes, it is hard to come up with the exact words of why you want to object or to friction match the feeling that the request is objectionable with the appropriate law. So hither are some sample interrogatory objections, a cheat sheet that might help yous determine how to object to interrogatories (that tin can also be applied to other discovery objections):

• Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory every bit vague, ambiguous, argumentative, overbroad, and unduly crushing, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. [This is a classic general objection you should utilize sparingly. Boilerplate objections exercise not go over well with judges.]
• Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory because information technology calls for the plaintiff to brand a legal conclusion. [Don't become 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 awarding of law to fact, but the courtroom may gild 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).]
• Plaintiff objects because this interrogatory calls for pure conjecture and speculation. It is not the job of the plaintiff to guess what would have happened in an alternative universe.
• Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory because this interrogatory is so broad, uncertain, and unintelligible that plaintiff cannot make up one's mind the nature of the information sought. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot provide an answer.
• Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that this interrogatory calls for privileged  information within the attorney-client privilege that it seeks information which is in the attorney's work product.
• Plaintiff objects because the identification, photocopying, and production of the requested documents would be oppressively burdensome and plush. The information or documents will be made bachelor for review at its storage location during business organization hours at a mutually user-friendly fourth dimension. Alternatively, upon request the plaintiff will provide the accused with an gauge of what it would cost to procure and produce these documents and the parties tin 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 see the rule requirements.)
• Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks data in the possession of, known to, or otherwise equally bachelor to the plaintiff.
• Plaintiff objects because the answer to this question may violate the accused's protection against self-incrimination. (Male child, yous are backside the 8-ball if this is your answer but we take made this response before.)
• Plaintiff objects to the entirety of this request because it is not reasonably calculated to atomic number 82 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.]
• Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory because it seeks data from third parties and information non within its possession, custody, command, or personal knowledge.
• Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory because it requires the responding party to marshal all of its available proof or the proof the political party intends to offering at trial. [Simply the evidence marshaling objection volition simply get you lot and so far.]
• Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory because the just possible purpose of this asking is to harass and to cause hardship to the plaintiff and needlessly increase the cost of litigation to the plaintiff or her counsel.
• Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory in that information technology requests information that volition non be known until after boosted discovery is completed.
• Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory because the defendant had exceeded the number of interrogatories allowed by Maryland law.
• Plaintiff objects considering this request calls for the disclosure of attorney piece of work product prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial. Moreover, the accused has failed to demonstrate a substantial need and the substantial equivalent of which the accused would be unable to obtain by other means without due hardship.
• Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory because it contains compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive questions. [Heads up for defense lawyers using compound interrogatories to end-run limits on the number of interrogatories.]
• Plaintiff objects to this question as premature. She has not fully completed discovery and has not completed grooming for trial. Farther discovery, legal research, and analysis may supply additional information. Then the responding party reserves the right to supplement these responses at trial. [This gives you some cover with the jury if yous change an interrogatory answer. Some judges volition require the party reading the answer to the jury to also read the objections.]

What Are The Almost Common Objections To Interrogatories?

The well-nigh 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 often because we asked detailed questions that pivot down defendants is that the request calls for a legal conclusion. The legal conclusion objection is rarely a valid objection.

Finally, nosotros also commonly see the objection that we have not properly defined a term in the question. This is one of the silliest objections we see.  Y'all take to combat this strategy for answering interrogatories by not providing answers but holding the other party'southward feet to the fire to provide reasonable responses.

If I'm Trying To Avoid Objections, Should I Draft My Interrogatories Narrowly?

You should draft interrogatories contention interrogatories and other interrogatories seeking specific responses narrowly. But a big role of interrogatories is throwing out a big internet to capture all the information that is out there that you lot may non have even considered. It is a bad idea to write interrogatories fearing objections.

You will to probable to go objections to your interrogatories. Many times, we have gotten objections to the language of interrogatories that were taken verbatim from the Maryland Rules.  Again, the key to overcome these objections to interrogatories is to first printing the party to provide meaningful responses.  If that fails, you file a motion and seek relief from the courtroom.

What Are Full general Objections?

Full general objections are a list of general objections that presumably apply to all responses to the discovery requests. General objections are almost invariably useless. But defense lawyers honey them. The mod version of Federal Rule 34 arguably prohibits any general objections.

Primal Maryland Cases

• Food Lion v. McNeill, 904 A.2d 464, 393 Physician. 715 (2006). This case is the seminal Maryland case for the rule that there is no sandbagging in discovery. Food Panthera leo was a worker's compensation case where the employer tried to claiming the plaintiff's expert witness disclosures because they failed to provide disclosures required under the rules. It clearly was a discovery violation but the accused waived the right to seek relief because it waited until trial to enhance the issue on bereft expert interrogatory responses.  Federal law is similar.
• Shenk v. Berger, 1991, 587 A.second 551, 86 Md. App. 498 (1991). This is a piffling betoken to objections to interrogatories. Simply if are a plaintiff'due south lawyer, you must know this rule. If the defendant has surveillance films or Facebook posts of your client and wants to use them as evidence, they must be disclosed AFTER the plaintiff'due south deposition. So asking a question that covers this volition non protect your client from getting blindsided with this impeachment evidence at a deposition.
• Kelch v. Mass Transit Administration, 411 A.second 449, 287 Md. 223 (1980). The court found in this motorbus-motorcycle crash that you demand discovery, the responding political party must tell yous when objecting whether they have the document (or tangible thing) being sought.

roosathisevers.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.millerandzois.com/interrogatory-objections.html