Abstract
Cases are often won and lost during the discovery phase of trial, making it common practice for many attorneys to use every effort to preserve any possible tactical advantage for their clients. Under both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Florida’s state rules, an attorney is allowed to object to portions of discovery requests in order to promote speedy, efficient, and fair litigation. However, the ability to object to discovery requests is being abused with alarming frequency. It has become common practice for attorneys to answer discovery requests with a blanket reservation of all objections, rather than following the rules and making specific objections to individual requests. Such blanket objections leave opposing counsel in the dark as to which responses are complete and which are conditioned on the boilerplate objection. These equivocal responses lead to wasted time and resources because discovery requests are not fully answered. This article discusses how the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure handle such abuses, as well as Florida’s recent decision to increase enforcement of discovery rules by imposing sanctions on attorneys who intentionally shield harmful information by using boilerplate objections.
Recommended Citation
R. J. Richards,
Answering Discovery "Subject to" Objections: Lessons From Florida‘s District Courts,
35
S. Ill. U. L.J.
127
(2010).
Available at:
https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/siulj/vol35/iss1/3