Document Request Responses Under FRCP 34 and 26's More Exacting Standards

Impermissible Boilerplate, Vague Objections, Outdated Templates, Relevancy, Proportionality, and Discovery on Discovery

Recording of a 90-minute CLE webinar with Q&A


Conducted on Tuesday, June 23, 2020

Recorded event now available

or call 1-800-926-7926
Program Materials

This CLE webinar will explore the challenges in responding to document requests under FRCP 26 and 34 and propose solutions to several perennial discovery problems including overbroad requests, privilege, and novel ways to restrict responses. The panel will also raise questions on the impact of timing and resources in light of COVID-19 social distancing and remote working.

Description

The 2015 amendments to FRCP 26 and 34 require the parties responding to document requests to provide specific objections and state whether responsive documents are being withheld. Nevertheless, many attorneys continue to use boilerplate and vague pre-2015 responses and objections.

One of the most significant pre-2015 problems was respondents objecting broadly to requests for production yet producing some documents. This left the requesting party guessing whether any relevant and responsive information was withheld under the objections. The 2015 amendments to Rule 34 sought to end this uncertainty.

Objections that do not comply with the amendments may be deemed waived. Some judges have reasoned that boilerplate objections are legally meaningless or overruled otherwise legitimate objections for lack of specificity.

Listen as the panel dives deep into what the FRCP requires and novel ways to provide responses and objections that comply with the rules but retain sufficient flexibility to address the fluidity of discovery.

READ MORE

Outline

  1. Refresher on how FRCP 26 and 34 changed in December 2015
  2. Caselaw update
    1. 4+ years later, how are practitioners and the courts responding to these changes?
  3. Legislative responses. See, e.g., California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.280(a)
  4. Challenges when drafting and responding to requests for production:
    1. Requests that lack “reasonable particularity”
    2. Objecting to requests for production
      1. Avoiding boilerplate objections and objecting with “specificity”
      2. Identifying what is being produced vs. what is being withheld
      3. Identifying a time for production
    3. Privilege considerations
    4. Impact of COVID-19
  5. Practical tips

Benefits

The panel will review these and other essential matters:

  • The 2015 revisions to FRCP and how courts and practitioners have responded to these changes
  • Legislative responses including California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.280(a)
  • Drafting requests with “reasonable particularity”
  • How to draft an objection “with specificity” and avoid boilerplate objections
  • Identifying what is being produced vs. what is being withheld
  • Identifying a time for production
  • Identifying a privilege log format
  • Impact of COVID-19 on discovery

Faculty

Cullen, Kelly
Kelly M. Cullen

GOIC Director
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe

Ms. Cullen has broad experience in all stages of discovery. Her practice ranges from coordinating preservation to...  |  Read More

Eidem Heinze, Audra
Audra C. Eidem Heinze

Shareholder
Banner Witcoff

Ms. Heinze applies a strategic and creative approach to resolving client needs, whether related to complex litigation,...  |  Read More

Herlinger, Logan
Logan J. Herlinger

Attorney
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe

Mr. Herlinger consults with Orrick attorneys and clients on eDiscovery strategy and information governance issues,...  |  Read More

Other Formats
— Anytime, Anywhere

Strafford will process CLE credit for one person on each recording. All formats include program handouts. To find out which recorded format will provide the best CLE option, select your state:

CLE On-Demand Video

$297

Download

$297