Form Objections are More than Bad Form
Judge Andrew Peck Gives a Stern Rebuke to Form Responses and Objections to Discovery Requests
In another discovery wake-up call, Judge Peck has issued a dire warning regarding Discovery responses and objections. That’s right! What is usually assigned to junior lawyers on a case is now front-and-center in Judge Peck’s courtroom. No one wants to be responsible for removing content from form objections that could come back to haunt them, so it may seem natural for form legal documents to grow by accretion over time. But Judge Peck no longer has any patience for form over substance. Employ meaningless boilerplate by rote and risk waiving the objection to that discovery request.
“The December 1, 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are now 15 months old. It is time for all counsel to learn the now-current Rules and update their “form” files. From now on in cases before this Court, any discovery response that does not comply with Rule 34’s requirement to state objections with specificity (and to clearly indicate whether responsive material is being withheld on the basis of objection) will be deemed a waiver of all objections (except as to privilege).” – Judge Peck
See the full order: Fischer_v_Forrest, F. Supp. 3d—, 2017 WL 773694 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2017).
Aaron Patton, Managing Director
Aaron Patton is a managing director at Precision Discovery who is always on the hunt for common sense solutions to persistent discovery problems. As a Wisconsin Law graduate (2001), Aaron is fascinated by “Law in Action”, especially the intersection of discovery rules and discovery reality. Aaron is based in the Washington, DC area.