![]() ![]() Taken literally, the objection that a request is “vague,” according to Webster’s, means that it is “not clearly expressed stated in general or indefinite terms.” Likewise, the objection that a request is “ambiguous” according to Webster’s means that it “wander about, waiver, dispute.” Objections that a request is “vague” or “ambiguous.” ![]() 2 In doing so, they have observed that such objections do nothing to inform the requesting parties or the court about why a request should not be honored, what part of it might be acceptable, or how it could be reformulated so as to pass muster.Ī review of typical objections to document requests helps illustrate why the objections are often inconsistent with a rational discovery process.Ī. That rule provides that a party must “state specifically the legal or factual basis for the objection and the extent to which the party is refusing to comply with the request.”įederal courts, applying similar rules, have routinely held that such boilerplate objections do not constitute valid objections. Rule 193.2(a) established the standard that all objections must meet. Plain and simple, this kind of objection does not comply with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, responsive non-privileged documents will be produced at a mutually convenient time and place." ![]() "Objection, the request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, irrelevant, unduly burdensome and harassing. There is no reason for this state of affairs to exist and indeed every reason to think that a concerted effort to enforce existing rules and articulate workable principles could rid us of this unproductive practice.What Have Long Passed for Legitimate Objections to Document Production Are Often Gibberish.Ī familiar formulation of the boilerplate objections often used by Texas practitioners is: Finally, the end product of this accepted process is often a record where neither the parties, nor the court, can say with certainty what has resulted, i.e., what documents have and have not been produced. Second, the imprecision in the case law’s articulation of pertinent standards inevitably leads to inconsistent and unpredictable results. Making objections and then later slashing through these objections wastes an extraordinary amount of time and effort, even when good faith abounds. This is a costly and regrettable state of affairs on several levels. It is virtually impossible to ascertain from many, if not most, responses what is and is not being produced and the specific reason that the non-produced documents are withheld. Unfortunately, a very large number of non-privilege responses made to document production requests today would also qualify as gibberish, “authentic frontier” or otherwise. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed a courage little seen in this day and age. I am particularly glad that these lovely children were here today to hear that speech. Now who can argue with that? I think we are all indebted to Gabby Johnson for clearly stating what needed to be said. There is a memorable scene in Mel Brooks’ movie Blazing Saddles where the town leader Olson Johnson, following several minutes of incoherent and emotional babbling by “frontiersman” Gabby Johnson that repeatedly decries “hornswaggling,” says: Why Not Have Responses To Document Requests ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |