No, it's not okay. Using vague, copy-paste objections absolutely breaks the rules. However, the judge decided not to punish the lawyers in this specific case. He explained that just saying a request is 'too much work' or 'not relevant' without explaining *why* is lazy and against the rules. He called it a bad habit that many lawyers have. Even though the lawyers broke the rules, he didn't sanction them because they were generally cooperative with each other and admitted they were wrong. Instead, the judge used the case to send a very strong message to all lawyers: this was the last warning, and from now on, anyone using these lazy objections in his court will face serious punishment.

Yes, the lawyers broke the rules by using vague excuses. But I'm not going to punish them this time because they worked well together otherwise and didn't mean to cause problems. It seems like they were just following what everyone else does in their area, even though it's wrong. I want the lawyers to help teach others about the right way to do things. But I'm warning everyone that in the future, if lawyers use these vague excuses in my court, they and their clients might get in big trouble.

Yes, the use of generalized, 'boilerplate' objections violates the specificity requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but no, sanctions are not warranted in this specific instance. The court found that such objections, which merely state legal grounds like 'overly broad,' 'burdensome,' or 'irrelevant' without any individualized factual analysis, are legally inadequate and contrary to Rules 33 and 34. The court condemned the widespread 'culture' and 'addiction' among litigators to use these objections out of 'lawyer paranoia,' noting that the practice obstructs discovery and increases costs. Specifically, the court rejected the 'urban legend' that making objections 'subject to' or 'without waiving' preserves any rights; in fact, failing to state a specific, timely objection constitutes a waiver. However, despite finding clear violations by both parties, the court declined to impose sanctions because the attorneys had a cooperative and professional relationship, worked in good faith to resolve most disputes without court intervention, and candidly admitted their conduct was improper once called on it. The court instead used the opinion as a stern warning that future use of boilerplate objections would result in substantial sanctions.

Yes, the use of 'boilerplate' objections by both parties violated the specificity requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, sanctions are not imposed in this case because the parties otherwise cooperated professionally to resolve discovery disputes, and there was no bad faith or significant impediment to discovery. I find that this case involved courteous and professional attorneys who worked together in good faith to resolve discovery disputes without the need for intervention by the court. The improper objections appear to be the result of a local 'culture' of protectionist discovery responses, rather than intentional obstruction. Nevertheless, I strongly encourage counsel for both parties to take steps to improve discovery practices at their own firms and to educate their colleagues and law students on proper discovery responses. I warn that in future cases, using 'boilerplate' objections to discovery will place counsel and their clients at risk for substantial sanctions.

Liguria Foods, Inc. v. Griffith Laboratories, Inc.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot