eDiscovery Daily Blog

• April 17, 2017

In Liguria Foods, Inc. v. Griffith Laboratories, Inc., C 14-3041-MWB (N.D. Iowa Mar. 13, 2017), Iowa District Judge Mark W. Bennett declined to sanction the parties for issuing boilerplate objections, but strongly warned them that the use of boilerplate objections in the future would place counsel and their clients at risk for significant sanctions.

In this case related to millions of dollars’ worth of sausage that turned rancid, it became apparent to the Judge Bennett (during a review of another discovery dispute) that both parties had submitted “obstructionist discovery responses” to each other during the discovery process.  On January 27, 2017, Judge Bennett entered an Order To Show Cause Why Counsel For Both Parties Should Not Be Sanctioned For Discovery Abuses And Directions For Further Briefing, directing the parties to file, under seal, all their written responses to each other’s discovery requests by the following day. Judge Bennett also notified counsel of his intention to impose sanctions on every attorney who signed the discovery responses, if he determined that the responses were, indeed, improper or abusive

The parties filed their written responses to discovery requests, as directed, the following day.  Based on his review of the discovery responses, Judge Bennett identified numerous discovery responses, from both sides, that he identified as improper in this ruling.  According to Judge Bennett, the improper objections included:

• “not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”;
• “subject to and without waiving its general and specific objections”;
• “to the extent they seek information that is protected from discovery under the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine or is otherwise privileged or protected from disclosure”; and
• “overbroad and unduly burdensome.”

In its brief in response to the Order To Show Cause, the plaintiff acknowledged that many of its objections were not stated with specificity, but asserted that it had not interposed any objection “for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation” and that some of its objections did include explanations.  The defendant, in its brief, stated that its written responses to the plaintiff’s discovery requests were not intended for any improper purposes and that the parties had conducted the litigation in a cooperative and professional manner. The defendant also noted that a magistrate judge had reviewed various defendant responses and found no fault with them, contending that that both parties relied on standard “boilerplate” language to assure that they were not waiving their rights while they met and conferred about the scope of privileges, pertinent time periods, among other issues.

Both sets of counsel ultimately admitted that the reason they used “boilerplate” objections had a lot to do with the way they were trained, the kinds of responses that they had received from opposing parties, and the “culture” that routinely involved the use of such “standardized” responses.

Judge Bennett evaluated each boilerplate objections, identifying violations of Rule 26(d), 26(b)(5)(A)(iii) and the “specificity” requirements of Rules 33(b)(4) and 34(b)(2).  However, in part because the parties “did not try to raise frivolous defenses for their conduct when called on” the use of “boilerplate” sanctions, Judge Bennett declined to sanction the parties this time.  Instead, he provided a new Supplemental Trial Management Order, advising the lawyers for the parties that “in conducting discovery, form or boilerplate objections shall not be used and, if used, may subject the party and/or its counsel to sanctions. Objections must be specific and state an adequate individualized basis.”

Judge Bennett also concluded his order with these strong words, in caps for emphasis: “NO MORE WARNINGS. IN THE FUTURE, USING “BOILERPLATE” OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY IN ANY CASE BEFORE ME PLACES COUNSEL AND THEIR CLIENTS AT RISK FOR SUBSTANTIAL SANCTIONS.”

Here’s another recent case where parties were warned about “boilerplate” objections.

So, what do you think?  Will we someday get past the issue of lawyers using standard, “boilerplate” objections in discovery responses?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.