Remove Admissibility Remove Discovery Remove Objections
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. It – surprisingly – sustained boilerplate objections. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” 26; see XTO Energy, Inc.

Discovery 130
article thumbnail

What Objections May Be Raised to a Subpoena by a Non-Party?

E-Discovery LLC

July 22, 2024), the Court addressed the type of objections that a subpoenaed non-party may make. Both the husband and wife sought discovery from TST. TST objected on, inter alia , lack of relevance and overbreadth. With no other factual predicate to support the objection, it was overruled. In Trusted Sci. &

Subpoenas 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

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. Albra , 2024 WL 4471672 (S.D.N.Y.

Discovery 130
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

No Sanction for Discovery Failure in Criminal Case

E-Discovery LLC

In response, “the prosecutor proffered that Sandhu was named in the supplemental discovery documents, which had been disclosed several weeks before the start of trial, but candidly acknowledged that the State had not indicated its intention to call Sandhu as a witness at that time. He asserted self defense. Standford v. State , 416 Md.

Discovery 130
article thumbnail

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

E-Discovery LLC

Defendant Hirschbach added the following to its work product objection: Beyond this, Hirschbach objects to this request because it is overbroad, vague and ambiguous. Next , the court overruled the improper boilerplate objections. 26, 2024). _ [1] I will soon be posting an updated blog on boilerplate objections.

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.” Wiegand objected. 16, 2024)(Bredar, J.),

Discovery 130