In most personal injury cases, interrogatories that get passed back and forth between the parties provide little information useful in deposition or trial because of ridiculous objections and incomplete answers. If you want to win your case at trial and put real pressure on the defendant, you have to press for real answers. As plaintiffs’ lawyers, we have to hold the defendant’s feet to the fire, or you will have a jury trial by ambush. Their passion for objecting to discovery requests is endless… and they are used to getting away with it.
Below is a sample letter before a motion to compel is filed demanding more complete answers. Why is this “Golden Rule” letter necessary when the answers are obviously deficient? Most jurisdictions require a meet-and-confer letter for deficient discovery request responses before you can file a motion to compel. This is also true in federal court under Rule 37(f).
Laura T. Mealy, Esquire
Bonner Kiernan Trebach & Crociata, LLP
1233 20th Street, N.W., 8th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20036
Re: Parson v. Starbucks
Case No. 10-C-10-018419 OT
More Litigation Samples
I have had an opportunity to review Defendant’s Responses to Requests for Production. These raise several issues that I must bring to your attention.
The responses I have received do not represent a good faith effort to provide discovery. Eleven of the seventeen responses I have received are subject to some sort of objection. This appears to be an exercise in legal gamesmanship rather than the real, good faith effort to provide discovery that is contemplated by the Maryland Rules. I’d like to lay our my concerns in hopes that you will modify your answers without the need to involve the court.
First, you include eight “general objections.” One big problem I have with these: the Maryland Rules do not permit general objections. Md. Rule 2-422(c) requires that the grounds for any refusal to produce must be fully stated in response to each specific request. If you believe that any of these individual requests are objectionable, please make your objections as required by the rule. The way you have made these general objections makes it impossible for me to tell which requests you think these objections apply to or why you think they are objectionable and I do not believe the Rules require me to guess. You need to withdraw these to comply with Maryland law.
You have objected to Request No. 4 on the basis that it is “vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome,” and that “it seeks information that is proprietary and confidential.” Surely you understand what material is sought by this request, otherwise, how could you determine that it “seeks information that is proprietary and confidential?”
This request is directed at discovering documents or other materials relevant to the defendant’s policies and training regarding floor care, inspection and maintenance, such as guidelines showing how often floors are inspected, and what employees are supposed to do in the event of a hazard.
You have not indicated whether any materials like this exist. Are there any documents like these? If there are, which ones do you contend are proprietary and confidential and why? You must at least tell me if any responsive materials exist, so that I may seek the assistance of the Court in resolving your objection.
You have objected to Request No. 6 on the basis that “it exceeds the scope of expert discovery under Rule 2-402(f).” Md. Rule 2-402(f) governs the production of statements given by parties or witnesses, not the scope of expert discovery.
Even if you meant to refer to Md. Rule 2-402(g), which does address expert discovery, you are still wrong because the law requires the production of “any written report made by the expert” concerning the expert’s findings and opinions.
The rest of the response says that defendant cannot respond because it has not yet selected experts. Now that defendant has named experts, please provide a response to this request.
You have objected to Request No. 7 on the basis that “it exceeds the scope of expert discovery under Rule 2-402(f).” Md. Rule 2-402(f) governs the production of statements given by parties or witnesses, not the scope of expert discovery.
Even if you meant to refer to Md. Rule 2-402(g), that rule does not address the production of materials provided to expert witnesses. The rest of the response says that defendant cannot respond because it has not yet selected experts. Now that defendant has named experts, please provide a response to this request.
You have objected to Request No. 9 on the basis that “the request potentially seeks attorney work product and attorney-client privileged information.” You then go on to state that “no documents are being withheld pursuant to these privileges.” You can see how I would find this frustrating, right? If there are no documents subject to these privileges, why are you objecting? You have also not said whether anything is being produced in response to Request No. 9. Please withdraw your objection and indicate what, if anything, is being produced in response to this request.
You have done the same thing in Response Nos. 10 and 11. Please withdraw these frivolous objections and provide responses to these requests.
You have objected to Request No. 12 on the basis that “it exceeds the scope of expert discovery under Rule 2-402(f).” Md. Rule 2-402(f) governs the production of statements given by parties or witnesses, not the scope of expert discovery. Even if you meant to refer to Md. Rule 2-402(g), that rule requires disclosure of “the grounds for each opinion…” which would include everything requested in Request No. 12. The rest of the response says that defendant cannot respond because it has not yet selected experts. Now that defendant has named experts, please provide a response to this request.
You have objected to Request No. 13 on the basis that it is “vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome, fails to describe the documents sought with reasonable particularity, and seeks documents that are proprietary and confidential.” This request is directed at discovering documents or other materials relevant to the defendant’s policies and training regarding floor care, and slips, spills, and falls.
I’m sure you understand what types of materials this request is seeking, right? You have not indicated whether any materials like this exist. Are there any documents like these? If there are, which ones do you contend are proprietary and confidential and why? You must at least tell me if any responsive materials exist, so that I may seek the assistance of the Court in resolving your objection.
You have objected to Request No. 14 on the basis that it is “vague, overbroad and unduly burdensome, fails to describe the documents sought with reasonable particularity, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
Surely, you understand what types of materials this request is seeking? Any documents containing recorded observations of common area safety. Like whether there was water pooled on the floor, to use an example relevant to this case. These kinds of materials would be likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because they would be relevant to whether Defendant had notice of the defective condition.
You have not indicated whether any materials like this exist. Are there any documents like these? You must at least tell me if any responsive materials exist, so that I may seek the assistance of the Court in resolving your objection.
You have objected to Request No. 16 on the basis that “it seeks information protected by attorney work product, attorney-client privilege and materials prepared in anticipation of litigation.” You need to tell me what material there is that is being withheld pursuant to any of these privileges, and which privilege you contend applies, so I may seek the assistance of the Court in resolving your claims of privilege. It is simply insufficient to refer me to Answer to Interrogatory No. 6, which itself suffers from the host of problems identified in my recent correspondence to you.
You have objected to Request No. 17 on the basis that “it seeks information protected by attorney work product, attorney-client privilege and/or materials prepared in anticipation of litigation.” You need to tell me what material there is that is being withheld under any of these privileges, and which privilege you contend applies, so I may seek the assistance of the Court in resolving your claims of privilege.
This is a big case with a lot of issues. So, obviously, I would like to resolve these issues so that we may concentrate on getting this case ready for trial. I want to work with you. Please let me have a prompt response so we can meet and confer to try to agree on as many of these issues as we are able, and if needed, present the remainder to the court for resolution.
Very truly yours,
Ronald V. Miller, Jr.
When addressing discovery deficiencies, it’s important to understand and utilize the “meet and confer” process, as mandated by the rules of most states before any motion related to discovery issues can be filed in court. This process is designed to encourage the resolution of disputes without court intervention, saving both time and resources for all parties involved.
Start your letter by clearly stating the necessity of a meet and confer session as per state rules. This not only follows legal protocol but also demonstrates your commitment to resolving issues amicably. Something like this will work:
“In compliance Maryland law, I propose that we conduct a meet and confer session to discuss and hopefully resolve the current deficiencies in the discovery responses provided by your office.” You can do this “meet” by phone.
Detail the specific deficiencies in your discovery demand letter section of the correspondence. Clearly outline what is missing or incomplete, and specify what is needed to rectify these issues:
“We specifically require the following documents and data which were not adequately provided in your initial responses: [list documents/data]. We request that these be furnished by [specific date], to avoid any unnecessary delays in the progression of this case.”
Every trial lawyer has made absurd objections that opposing counsel never followed up on. You just have to message that this is not you. End your letter with a firm yet respectful call to action, reiterating the importance of a prompt and thorough response to avoid further legal actions. Some thing to the effect of this:
“Please confirm your availability for a meet and confer session by [a firm date]. Should we not be able to resolve these issues collaboratively, we may be compelled to seek judicial intervention as per the procedural guidelines. Your cooperation is appreciated and expected.”
Navigating the discovery process in personal injury cases often involves dealing with objections and incomplete answers from the opposition. Effective handling of these challenges – and writing good discovery to begin with – is crucial to avoid delays and ensure access to necessary evidence. Here are a few thoughts:
If you are looking for help in handling your accident/malpractice/product liability/premises liability case, call 800-553-8082 or get a free online no obligation consultation. This is both for potential clients and potential referring lawyers throughout the United States. Our lawyers handle only severe accident and wrongful death claims.
They quite literally worked as hard as if not harder than the doctors to save our lives. Terry Waldron
Ron helped me find a clear path that ended with my foot healing and a settlement that was much more than I hope for. Aaron Johnson
Hopefully I won't need it again but if I do, I have definitely found my lawyer for life and I would definitely recommend this office to anyone! Bridget Stevens
The last case I referred to them settled for $1.2 million. John Selinger I am so grateful that I was lucky to pick Miller & Zois. Maggie LauerThe entire team from the intake Samantha to the lawyer himself (Ron Miller) has been really approachable. Suzette Allen
The case settled and I got a lot more money than I expected. Ron even fought to reduce how much I owed in medical bills so I could get an even larger settlement. Nchedo Idahosa
