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. TST objected on, inter alia , lack of relevance and overbreadth. The trial court rejected TST’s relevance objection, stating: “[A] third party doesn’t really, in my estimation, have standing to argue about relevance and overbreadth.

Subpoenas 130
article thumbnail

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

E-Discovery LLC

It – surprisingly – sustained boilerplate objections. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Interestingly, the Ho court sustained what appear to be boilerplate objections that plaintiff’s requests were “overly burdensome” and “irrelevant….”

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

Admissibility of Internet Searches About Terminating Pregnancy

E-Discovery LLC

The Court described the context of the internet searching as follows: At trial, the State introduced evidence, over objection, that between March of 2018 and May of 2018, Appellant performed the searches listed above using her phone. At no point during Dr. Waldrop’s testimony did Appellant make any objection or motion to strike.

article thumbnail

Is a “Composite” Video Admissible and Can a Police Officer “Narrate” It at Trial? – Part 2 of 2

E-Discovery LLC

A prior blog addressed the admissibility of a “composite” video prepared by the prosecution. Over various objections, he explained the relationship between the different clips in the composite video and identified the camera numbers, times, streets, and specific activities depicted in the clips. State , 261 Md. State, 261 Md.

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

Wiegand objected. After setting out the boilerplate on scope of discovery and requirements for a protective order, the Court wrote: “The burden is on the party resisting discovery to explain specifically why its objections, including those based on irrelevance, are proper given the broad and liberal construction of federal discovery rules.”

Discovery 130
article thumbnail

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

E-Discovery LLC

27, 2024), “boilerplate” objections were sustained on the specific facts presented. BOILERPLATE OBJECTIONS HAVE GENERALLY BEEN CONDEMNED Boilerplate objections have generally been condemned. See General Objections, Dracula, and “Whac a Mole” (Apr. In Jacobs v. The Journal Publishing Co., 2024 WL 4333199 (D. at 190, 192.