There is no greater drag than discovery disputes. They are, by far, the most wasteful investment of time for lawyers and judges. I can’t imagine anything a judge would rather not be forced to spend time on. Although lawyers know better, some cannot help themselves. Despite the “usual stipulations” at a deposition, they still pipe in with impermissible “asked and answered” objections, “relevance” objections and “form” objections to every question, turning the record into a mess of counsel’s useless pepper.
As a plaintiff’s employment lawyer, written discovery has always been a migraine. Wholesale frivolous objections from the defense have become near routine. One trend I find particularly obnoxious is the interposing of objections to everything, followed by this statement: ‘Notwithstanding, and subject to the objection, we answer as follows.’ Of course this is but a trap designed to allow one to ambush an opponent at trial with new documents and evidence while invoking the amorphous “objection.” Motions to compel answers free of such hedging may irk a judge who is told by the offending lawyer, ‘We’re actually not withholding anything pursuant to that objection.’ The judge’s time has been wasted and she or he is justly annoyed. The bench should put an end to this nonsense once and for all.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
