Concise Summary of Scope of Discovery and Principles Governing Objections

The court in Carter v. Uzglobal LLC, 2025 WL 3443521 (D. N. Mex. Dec. 1, 2025), succinctly summarized a number of important discovery issues, writing:

“A. Rule 26(b)’s Scope of Discovery.

Discoverable material includes ‘any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Factors include the importance of the issues at stake, the importance of the sought material to resolving those issues, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources and relative access to information, and the burden of producing the sought material compared to its likely benefit. Id. Courts enjoy considerable discretion to balance these factors when permitting, limiting, or denying discovery. Gomez v. Martin Marietta Corp., 50 F.3d 1511, 1520 (10th Cir. 1995). The scope of discovery is presumptively broad: material that has any possible relevance to a claim or defense, even if the material itself is not admissible in evidence, may be discoverable. Sugar v. Tackett, No. 20-cv-00331, 2021 WL 5769463, at *4 (D.N.M. Dec. 6, 2021) (quotation omitted).

The liberal treatment of discovery does not require courts to approve an ‘unwieldy, burdensome, and speculative fishing expedition.’ Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Grp. Ins. Plan, 619 F.3d 1151, 1163 (10th Cir. 2010) (interpreting prior iteration of Rule 26(b)). Discovery instead permits ‘parties to flesh out allegations for which they initially have at least a modicum of objective support.’ Kennicott v. Sandia Corp., 327 F.R.D. 454, 465 (D.N.M. 2018) (quotation omitted). Overbroad discovery requests include those that employ omnibus terms like ‘concerning’ or ‘relating to’ in combination with generalized categories of information. Moses v. Halstead, 236 F.R.D. 667, 672 (D. Kan. 2006); see also Regan-Touhy v. Walgreen Co., 526 F.3d 641, 649 (10th Cir. 2008) (discovery requests must be phrased with ‘reasonable particularity’). In addition, failure to specify relevant timeframes, subject matter, or locations creates overbreadth and undue burden. See Baylon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 12-cv-00052, 2013 WL 12164723, at *3 (D.N.M. Nov. 20, 2013); see also Coolidge v. United States, No. 21-cv-00307, 2022 WL 1026947, at *4 (D.N.M. Apr. 6, 2022).

Courts may modify improper discovery requests in their discretion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C); see Punt v. Kelly Servs., 862 F.3d 1040, 1047 (10th Cir. 2017).

B. Interrogatories.

A party may serve an interrogatory about any matter within the scope of discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). For entity parties, an officer or agent must answer the interrogatory by furnishing ‘all available information.’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(1)(B). ‘Available information’ includes all information the agent or officer can obtain with reasonable effort, including from other agents, representatives, and current and former employees. Dalton v. Town of Silver City, No. 17-cv-01143, 2021 WL 4307149, at *6 (D.N.M. Sep. 22, 2021). However, the officer or agent need not ‘do the interrogating party’s investigation for him’ by expending undue labor or expense to track down responsive information. City of Las Cruces v. United States, No. 17-cv-00809, 2021 WL 330062, at *8 (D.N.M. Feb. 1, 2021) (quotation omitted). If the party cannot give a full, fair, and specific answer to an interrogatory despite reasonable effort, its officer or agent must state so under oath and describe the efforts undertaken. Id.

C. Requests for Production.

A party may request to inspect any discoverable documents or electronically stored information that is in another party’s possession, custody, or control. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)(A). The request must ‘describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected.’ Id. 34(b)(1)(A). ‘Possession, custody, or control’ covers all items which a party either has the right, authority, or practical ability to obtain, including from a non-party. Las Cruces, 2021 WL 330062, at *8; Landry v. Swire Oilfield Servs., LLC., 323 F.R.D. 360, 382 (D.N.M. 2018). Complying with a request for production requires a party to either produce all responsive material or affirmatively state it could not do so despite reasonable efforts. Zheng v. Walker, No. 22-cv-00432, 2023 WL 4365441, at *2 (D.N.M. July 6, 2023). The producing party must sufficiently describe those efforts to enable the court to review the diligence of the party’s search. Id. at *3.

The fact that a request for production seeks material equally available to both parties will not bar discovery. Lincoln v. Hartford Ins. Co., No. 02-cv-00738, 2003 WL 27385328, at *3 (D.N.M. May 12, 2003). However, the court may limit or deny the request as unreasonably burdensome or inconvenient. Id.; Wetzel v. Diestel Turkey Ranch, No. 20-cv-01213, 2022 WL 16635292, at *8 (D.N.M. Nov. 2, 2022).

D. Objecting to Discovery Requests.

If a discovery request’s relevance is not ‘readily apparent,’ the requesting party has the burden to demonstrate relevance. Cardenas v. Dorel Juv. Grp., Inc., 232 F.R.D. 377, 383 (D. Kan. 2005). But if relevance is either apparent or demonstrated by the requesting party, the objecting party has the burden to prove its objection is justified. See id. at 382. Objections must be specific and supported; boilerplate statements—that a request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, or privileged without further explanation, for example— improperly ‘conceal from opposing counsel and the court the actual problem with [the] request.’ Smash Tech., LLC v. Smash Sols., LLC, 335 F.R.D. 438, 447 (D. Utah 2020). Boilerplate objections receive boilerplate overrulings. AerSale, Inc. v. City of Roswell, No. 22-cv-00218, 2023 WL 8005213, at *5 (D.N.M. Nov. 17, 2023).

While a party can object to discovery requests in full or in part, it cannot preserve its objections by producing discovery ‘notwithstanding’ or ‘without waiving’ those objections. Heuskin v. D&E Transp., LLC, No. 19-cv-00957, 2020 WL 1450575, at *2 (D.N.M. Mar. 25, 2020) (interrogatories); Wagner Equip. Co. v. Wood, No. 11-cv-00466, 2012 WL 12862336, at *6 (D.N.M. Nov. 21, 2012) (requests for production). Such objections fail to alert the requesting party or the court to what, if any, responsive material was withheld. Smash Tech., 335 F.R.D. at 442. A party must either disclose fully or (1) object to the discovery request, (2) withhold requested material based on the objection, and (3) clearly state it has done so by ‘link[ing] each specific objection to what was withheld.’ Id.”