Sample 'Your Answers Are Awful' Discovery Letter

Kimberly S. LeBlanc, 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

Dear Ms. LeBlanc:

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.

I do not believe that the responses I have received 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 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 rule requires 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.” 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/or falls. Surely you understand what types of materials this request is seeking? 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/or 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 as 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 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.

Obviously, I would like to resolve these issues so that we may concentrate on getting this case ready for trial. Please let me have a prompt response so that we can 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,
Frustrated Plaintiffs' Lawyer

Getting Help with Your Case

If you are looking for help in handling your accident/malpractice/product liablity/premises liablity 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 very serious accident claims.

Contact Us For a Free Consultation

If you are hurt in a serious accident or are the victim of medical malpractice, contact our team of lawyers to discuss your case.
Call us now for help at (800) 553-8082

You can also get a FREE no obligation on-line consultation.

Client Reviews

  • They quite literally worked as hard as if not harder than the doctors to save our lives.
    ★★★★★
  • Ron helped me find a clear path that ended with my foot healing and a settlement that was much more than I hope for.
    ★★★★★
  • 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!
    ★★★★★
  • The last case I referred to them settled for $1.2 million.
    ★★★★★
  • I am so grateful that I was lucky to pick Miller & Zois.
    ★★★★★
  • The entire team from the intake Samantha to the lawyer himself (Ron Miller) has been really approachable.
    ★★★★★
  • 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.
    ★★★★★
  • Miller and Zois is the best firm in the state of Maryland, and without their support, understanding, and just being there when I needed encouragement, I truly do not know how I would have succeeded without them.
    ★★★★★

Contact Us

Free Consultation (800) 553-8082 Call 24/7