Remove Admissibility Remove Discovery Remove Interrogatories
article thumbnail

E-Discovery 101 – – A Refresher on the Scope of Discovery + Boilerplate Objections Sustained

E-Discovery LLC

9, 2024), provides a succinct summary of the scope of discovery under the December 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” It – surprisingly – sustained boilerplate objections. The case involved a loan gone south.

Discovery 130
article thumbnail

Discovery From Former Attorney About Disputed Quid Pro Quo Offer to Opponent

E-Discovery LLC

11, 2024), involved a request for discovery from a former Town attorney concerning an offer that he allegedly made to plaintiffs. The court: set out the governing standard for discovery from an attorney and, denied a request to depose the attorney; but, authorized a limited interrogatory to him. emphasis added].

Discovery 130
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

“Boilerplate” Objections Are Generally Condemned; Except When They’re Not

E-Discovery LLC

16, 2024)(citing cases: “Defendants included general and boilerplate objections in their responses to discovery, which are not acceptable in this circuit. Defendants’ responses are a perfect example of how not to answer discovery requests. See General Objections, Dracula, and “Whac a Mole” (Apr. at 187 (citation omitted). “The

article thumbnail

Discovery is the Lawyer’s X-Ray; However, an MRI May Not Be Reasonable

E-Discovery LLC

29, 2024), rejected “oceanic” discovery requests, while permitting reasonable ones. The court wrote: “Not surprisingly, discovery in this case, like ‘the course of true love, [has been anything but] smooth.’ The court wrote: “Not surprisingly, discovery in this case, like ‘the course of true love, [has been anything but] smooth.’

Discovery 130
article thumbnail

Is a Vehicle’s “On Board” or “Dash Cam” Video Protected From Disclosure as “Work Product?”

E-Discovery LLC

26(b)(1), “[r]elevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The December 2015 amendments to Rule 26(b)(1) deleted the phrase “subject matter of the action” from the scope of discovery. 9, 2021). [2] 9, 2021). [2]

article thumbnail

MyCase + Briefpoint: Save Hours Automating Discovery Requests

MyCase

Reading, reviewing, and crafting discovery responses isn’t just tedious—it’s downright time-consuming. MyCase has partnered with Briefpoint to help firms save time on discovery documents by eliminating repetitive work required for responses. What is Briefpoint? How Does the Integration Work? Top Benefits of MyCase and Briefpoint 1.

article thumbnail

Relative Proportionality Argument Rejected

E-Discovery LLC

One of three defendants contended that the discovery propounded on it was not proportional because it was the least culpable of the three. Plaintiffs sought discovery “relat[ing] to other incidents involving Wiegand mountain coasters at Wisp Resort and elsewhere.” 16, 2024)(Bredar, J.), The Bender Court disagreed. Wiegand objected.

Discovery 130