Discovery Evidence Objections 
E-Discovery LLC
SEPTEMBER 16, 2024
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.
E-Discovery LLC
OCTOBER 9, 2024
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.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
E-Discovery LLC
OCTOBER 15, 2024
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. &
E-Discovery LLC
SEPTEMBER 4, 2024
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.’
E-Discovery LLC
OCTOBER 22, 2024
The State’s newly-minted objections to the deposition topics come far too late , and are not persuasive.” NNI argued that Washington reneged and, as evidence, pointed to Washington allegedly “ignoring” its letter. Washington’s “newly-minted” objection asserted that “the entire notice is overbroad and unduly burdensome….”
E-Discovery LLC
JULY 3, 2024
June 28, 2024)(unreported), the intermediate appellate court affirmed a discovery sanction in a divorce action. Mrs. Ferko alleged that Mr. Ferko’s discovery responses were inadequate on the issue of marital property. Ferko then filed two more motions to compel asserting that the discovery responses were deficient.
E-Discovery LLC
MAY 27, 2024
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. Rule 4-263(n).
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
130 
Let's personalize your content