Related Posts
Community Builder
When the team sends their deliverable draft.
*Walks away slowly*
Additional Posts in Litigation & Arbitration
Coach
Coach
Mentor
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
I mean yeah, if it gets in front of a judge and there’s clearly requests you can respond to, they will be mad because it looks like you’re trying to prolong discovery and refuse to participate.
So generally, I only do what you have described in an emergency to preserve the objections, and only if OC doesn’t respond to a request for extension before they are due. If you don’t at least put in the effort to respond substantively, you open yourself up to a motion to compel. And some judges will ream you out for playing games during discovery. Also check your local rules as it may be a violation.
Agree — you have to amend your responses with substantive answers anyway, and should do so quickly before a MTC can be filed, so I really only do it as a last resort. At least in my area, OC is usually reasonable with discovery extensions, so long as it’s not abused and generally offered as a mutual extension (ie if you grant me the 2 weeks I’m asking for, I’ll automatically agree to 2 weeks for your response deadline). Filing objections only should only be used as a last resort and then supplemented/amended within no more than a week.
It's just poor lawyering and bad practice to play those games. If you need more time, fine, butbbest practice is really to be forthcoming. This day in age, however, who care about class and standards. 👀
Federal judges hate discovery fights and there is tons of case law against boilerplate objections and dialatory discovery practices.
There is a Federal case where the judge made a finding that the boilerplate objections filed in response were so general that they failed to meet the requirement of specificity; consequently, the holding deemed all objections waived, sanctioned the responding party, and ordered all costs / fees to be paid by the loser of the MTC.
If and when I got responses like what you are describing, I would ask for supplemental responses within 4 business days and attach the order to the letter.
Incidentally, our local Federal judges did NOT fuck around with discovery. So neither did the lawyers.
IMHO, the example being set for you in one NOT to emulate.
It really should only be a last resort. But technically, they have to meet and confer with you before they can move to compel. At the meet and confer point, you can agree to supplement, serve the substantive responses by the deadline to do so, and then meet and confer about those responses (essentially, it is as if you served the substantive responses on time the first time). If they move to compel on your supplemental responses, the judge will see that you initially served objection only responses, but will have to address the sufficiency of your SUPPLEMENTAL responses. So there is not much to lose in doing it in my experience-other than if you lose ultimately on a MTC and are sanctioned, you will be paying for the initial meet and confer costs AND the supplemental ones.
This is what I do if OC won’t give me my 2 week extension because my client is out of town.