Polsinelli - Commercial Litigation
         

  

May 2014

  

Respond with Caution! Responses to Discovery "Subject to the Stated Objections" May Waive Your Client's Objections

  

 
 

  

     

  

 
 

Commercial Litigation
Leaders:

  

Russell S. Jones Jr.

Practice Area Chair

816.374.0532

rjones@polsinelli.com

  

Stacy A. Carpenter

Practice Area Vice Chair

303.583.8237

scarpenter@polsinelli.com

  

S. Jay Dobbs

Practice Area Vice Chair

314.552.6847

jdobbs@polsinelli.com

  

Author:

  

Kelly D. Stohs

913.234.7525

kstohs@polsinelli.com

  

  

Learn more about our Commercial Litigation Professionals, click here.

  

Learn more about our Commercial Litigation practice, click here.

  

  

Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook.

View Polsinelli documents on JD Supra  
LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Inside Law Podcast
   

A growing number of federal courts have confirmed that the once-common discovery practice of asserting an objection followed by a bare "conditional" response, i.e., stating that "Subject to and without waiving the stated objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged responsive documents," is now considered improper and may result in an inadvertent waiver of the party's stated objections. Several federal district courts are concluding that such a conditional response, without specifying what is being withheld based on the objection and what is being produced, is improper and, most significantly, that a party may waive its objections by responding conditionally.

In a recent decision in Sprint Comm. Co., L.P. v. Comcast Cable Comm., LLC, a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the District of Kansas joined this growing trend of overruling objections when counsel provides a conditional response. The court held that when answering discovery, "whenever an answer accompanies an objection, the objection is deemed waived and the answer, if responsive, stands." Thus, a purported reservation of objections followed by a conditional response is "improper" and ultimately has the effect of waiving the objections to the particular document requests.

In Comcast, plaintiff sued the defendants for patent infringement. Defendants served plaintiff with document requests related to a separate patent infringement trial. In response to three of the document requests, plaintiff objected on the basis that they sought attorney-client privileged and work product information, but then stated: "Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections . . . [plaintiff] will produce nonprivileged responsive documents within its custody and control after a reasonably diligent search . . . ." Defendants filed a motion to compel plaintiff to produce the documents.

The court held that "[t]his purported reservation of rights by [plaintiff] was improper and ultimately has the effect of waiving [plaintiff's] objections to these specific document requests. Accordingly, the court granted plaintiff's motion to compel and ordered plaintiff to produce the documents requested in the three requests.

In regard to the other document requests, to which plaintiff stood on its objections, the court considered the merits of plaintiff's objections and ultimately held that the objections were proper and denied the motion to compel as to those requests.

The Comcast court reasoned that conditional responses are not permitted by Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. Rule 34(b)(2) permits only three responses to a request for production of documents: produce the documents as requested, "state an objection to the request" as a whole, or state an "objection to part of [the] request" provided that the response specifies the part objected to and responds to the non-objectionable portion.

The plaintiff in Comcast subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order. Defendants joined the plaintiff in asking that the court to withdraw its holding that the plaintiff waived privilege via its conditional responses. Due to the "unusual circumstances" of the case and the joint request of the parties, the Court reconsidered the order and withdrew its holding as to waiver, but affirmed its ruling. The court specifically cautioned that "[t]he court remains unpersuaded that conditional discovery responses are ever appropriate." The court warned that practitioners "should not view this as a retreat from the court's ruling that when a party objects to discovery but nonetheless answers 'subject to' the objection, the objection will be deemed waived."

Why This Is Important

In order to provide the best legal counsel, it is imperative to stay abreast of changing legal guidelines and adapt accordingly. At Polsinelli, no case is conducted with a "business as usual" attitude, and we stay on top of new legal interpretations both large and small in order to deliver big results for our clients.

For More Information

If you have questions about this alert, please contact:

  

 
 

  

     

  

 

 

  

     

  

 
 

Atlanta  Chattanooga  Chicago  Dallas  Denver  Edwardsville  Jefferson City  Kansas City  Los Angeles  New York
Overland Park  Phoenix   St. Joseph  St. Louis  Springfield  Topeka  Washington, D.C.  Wilmington  
polsinelli.com

 
 

  

     

  

 
 

  

ABOUT POLSINELLI

real challenges. real answers.SM  
Polsinelli is a first generation Am Law 100 firm, serving corporations, institutions, entrepreneurs and individuals nationally. Our attorneys successfully build enduring client relationships by providing practical legal counsel infused with business insight, and with a passion for understanding how to assist General Counsel and CEOs achieve their legal objectives. Polsinelli is ranked 18th in number of U.S. partners* and has more than 720 attorneys in 18 offices. Polsinelli was profiled in the June 2013 issue of The American Lawyer as the fastest-growing law firm in America over a five-year period. The firm focuses on healthcare, financial services, real estate, life sciences and technology, energy and business litigation, and has depth of experience in 100 service areas and 70 industries. The firm can be found online at www.polsinelli.com. Polsinelli PC. In California, Polsinelli LLP.

*Law360, March 2014

  

 
 

  

     

  

 
 

Polsinelli provides this material for informational purposes only. The material provided herein is general and is not intended to be legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

Copyright © 2014 Polsinelli PC.

 
             
Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook.