Don’t say you weren’t warned. Federal judge tells parties to adhere to new Rule 34 by stating grounds for objections with specificity or else be sanctioned.
In this copyright infringement case concerning honey harvesting, Judge Andrew Peck, a leading expert on e-discovery best practices, wrote startling commentary in his court opinion regarding the non-compliance with Rule 34. What led him to this startling opinion is stated below:
The defendants made 17 general objections in their Rule 34 response. These general, boilerplate objections amounted to written statements like “overly broad and unduly burdensome” without offering specifics. Additionally, the defendants referenced old language which is no longer stated in Rule 34 (likely to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence) and never stated when discovery productions would be made.
Based on these actions, Judge Andrew Peck issued a “wake-up call to the Bar in this district.”
Download the PDF version of Fischer v. Forrest case analysis here.