Remove Admissibility Remove Evidence Remove Interrogatories
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.” It is replaced by the direct statement that ‘Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.’”

article thumbnail

Relative Proportionality Argument Rejected

E-Discovery LLC

The document requests and interrogatories at issue plainly seek information to which Plaintiffs are entitled, and Wiegand cannot seriously contend that the information is not relevant. Wiegand’s argument that the requested information would not be admissible under Fed.R.Evid. For instance, Request No. sled at Wisp.”

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

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

E-Discovery LLC

Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Similarly, identification of details of transactions in response to Interrogatory No. 11 is unduly burdensome where the account statements have been produced.”

Discovery 130
article thumbnail

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

E-Discovery LLC

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. The defendants, a Town and others , denied knowledge of the alleged offer. The plaintiffs wanted to develop certain property that they owned. emphasis added]. See Fed.R.Evid.

Discovery 130
article thumbnail

Do You Have to Ask an Opponent for a Privilege Log?

E-Discovery LLC

c)(2) contentions, in reviewing the briefs and exhibits, it is evident that the communication issues addressed in the court’s January 11, 2024 order have not been resolved. at *5-6, passim , as well as contention interrogatories, id. The Norcold court addressed a number of other issues. [1] at *6, among other issues.

Discovery 130
article thumbnail

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

E-Discovery LLC

Mr. Subrin reports of a pre-1929 case in which 2,258 interrogatories were filed. That is because, in this Title VII case, the evidence considered by a peer review committee lay “at the heart” of the claim. Of course, while generally safe, they do expose a patient to radiation so there must be a justification for the procedure.

Discovery 130
article thumbnail

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

E-Discovery LLC

26(b)(1)states: The former provision for discovery of relevant but inadmissible information that appears “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” is also deleted. It is replaced by the direct statement that “Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.”