Objections to Written Discovery

Every lawyer who practices litigation knows the frustration of receiving general or “blanket” objections to written discovery. For example, “Defendant objects to each and every interrogatory on the grounds that it is made, unlimited in time, invasive of attorney work product, seeks privileged information, ambiguous, blah, blah, blah….”

This practice is widespread. But, do the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure permit these general objections?

Rule 33 states what that a party must answer an interrogatory:

• Separately,

• Fully, and

• Under oath.

If an objection is made to an interrogatory, the party must:

• State the reasons for the objection, and

• Otherwise answer the non-objectionable portion of the interrogatory.

The Comment to the Rule gives an example of a non-objectionable part. “If, for example, an interrogatory seeking information about 30 facilities is deemed objectionable, but an interrogatory seeking information about 10 facilities would not have been objectionable, the interrogatory should be answered with respect to the 10 facilities.”

Rule 34 places a similar obligation on a party responding to requests for production. With respect to each item requested, the party must state that it will be produced unless an objection is made.

In making an objection, the party must state the reasons for the objection. Then, he must respond to the non-objectionable part.

If a party does not admit a particular request for admission, he has two options. He can:

(a) Specifically deny the matter, or

(b) Set forth in detail why he cannot truthfully admit or deny it.

A party must answer in good faith. So, if good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only part of the request, he must do so.

If a party invokes lack of information or knowledge, he must also states that the information known or readily obtainable by him is insufficient to allow him to answer.

In Ford Motor Co. v. Tennin , 960 So.2d 379 (Miss. 2007), the Mississippi Supreme Court specifically examined the propriety of general objections.

In that case, Ford Motor asserted a number of general objections, including this one:

“Ford objects on the ground that such requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome, and the information sought is neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

The Supreme Court wasted no time in rejecting this type of objection:

“General objections applicable to each and every interrogatory or request for production are clearly outside the bounds of this rule. If a party wishes to lodge an objection to a question or request submitted by the opposition, that party must make such objection to that specific question or request.”

The plaintiffs in Tennin had successfully moved in the lower court to have the general objections struck. Interestingly enough,the Supreme Court stated that even before the lower court struck the general objections, the plaintiffs had “rightfully ignored” them.

The Court also addressed specific objections made on a request-by-request basis. The Court emphasized that a party who receives incomplete responses or improper objections has the duty to pursue a motion to compel and bring it on for hearing. A party cannot wait and then try to take advantage of the improper response at trial.

A well-drafted set of discovery requests should include a reminder to the other side of these obligations and the prohibited use of general objections.

/

The post Objections to Written Discovery appeared first on Panter Law Firm, PLLC.