Remove Discovery Remove Interrogatories Remove Litigation
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

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. While Sedona correctly states that the test is whether a reasonable party in the same factual circumstances would have reasonably foreseen litigation, I have some questions about the Li Courts conclusion.

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.” Nor is it a positive development when that court wrote: “Things have never exactly moved along at a break-neck pace in this litigation.

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

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
article thumbnail

A Wake Up Call Revisited: Read the Rules & Don’t Argue “Not Reasonably Calculated” in Federal Courts

E-Discovery LLC

19, 2025)(Emphasis added), the court wrote: Throughout his responses, Canales objects to OPWs requests on the ground that they are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Reasonably Calculated to Lead to Discovery of Admissible Evidence (Nov. It has been almost seven years since the Hon.