Challenge Blanket Objections to Discovery

The scope of discovery is very broad.

Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that
“[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. The information sought need not be admissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

Under the Federal Rules, the objecting party has the burden of explaining why the discovery is improper, and it’s well-settled that boilerplate objections are insufficient. “Boilerplate, generalized objections are inadequate and tantamount to not making any objection at all.” Walker v. Lakewood Condo. Owners Ass’n, 186 F.R.D. 584, 587 (C.D. Cal. 1999); accord Adelman v. Boy Scouts of Am., 276 F.R.D. 681, 688 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (“[J]udges in this district typically condemn boilerplate objections as legally inadequate or meaningless.”); accord Ritacca v. Abbott Laboratories, 203 F.R.D. 332, 335 n.4 (N.D.Ill. 2001) (“As courts have repeatedly pointed out, blanket objections are patently improper, . . . [and] we treat [the] general objections as if they were never made.”). See also Matthew Jarvey, “Boilerplate Discovery Objections,” 61 Drake L. Rev. 913 (2013).

Livinglies's Weblog

There is a simple rule to keep in mind. If you win on the discovery requests, you are on your way to a successful conclusion for the homeowner.

The 2015 amendment to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure essentially bars the use of blanket objections. The objector must state both the grounds and the reasons for an objection on each item. Blanket objections continue nonetheless in Federal Court and are pandemic in state courts. They continue because few lawyers or pro se litigants are challenging them forcefully.

The Federal Rules, while not binding on state court, could be used as persuasive authority to ply answers out of banks and servicers who are attempting to obscure the facts — i.e., primarily that the base event (i.e., the alleged loan represented on the note and mortgage), in a long chain of events, was a nullity along with all transfers…

View original post 941 more words