article thumbnail

When Can a Party Refer to Produced Records as an Answer to an Interrogatory?

E-Discovery LLC

Plaintiff contended that, in response to plaintiffs interrogatories, Defendants improperly refer to hundreds of pages of documents, which is non-responsive, evasive, and in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d). First, it must show that a review of the documents will actually reveal answers to the interrogatories.

article thumbnail

Spoliation Discovery Permitted

E-Discovery LLC

7, 2025), the court addressed a number of discovery disputes in this lawsuit by a terminated employee against her former employer. The court permitted spoliation interrogatories. Plaintiffs supplemental response stated: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as compound. Defendants Interrogatory No. Merck & Co.,

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

Sometimes Discovery Disputes Do Not Bring Out the Best in Us – Part II

E-Discovery LLC

Life is Short It is also a red flag when the court notes: “Since February of 2023, there have only been rare and brief occasions when the parties did not have some discovery dispute before the court.” There is nothing wrong with a little humor to provide a break in the monotony of this long and tedious discovery war.” June 17, 2024).

Discovery 130
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

Two Recent Decisions Imposing Sanctions for Discovery Failures

E-Discovery LLC

26, 2024)(unreported), dismissals for discovery violations were affirmed. Nguh, one owner, propounded discovery on Mr. Etame, the opposing owner. The Appellate Court wrote: Mr. Etame failed to respond to discovery, and on March 3, 2022, Ms. Nguh’s discovery requests, including requests for his address and phone number.

Discovery 130
article thumbnail

Li. v. Merck Addresses: Trigger; Spoliation Discovery; and, Document Unitization

E-Discovery LLC

7, 2025), the court addressed a number of discovery disputes in a lawsuit by a terminated employee against her former employer. A second interesting aspect of Li is that the court permitted discovery relating to spoliation. What if the lawyer simply said, even though I have not been retained, I think you have a duty to preserve?

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