Duties in Responding to  Written Discovery

The explanation of a litigant’s duties in responding to written discovery, as laid out in Williamson v. First Horizon Bank, 2026 WL 1492594 (E.D. La. May 28, 2026), does not break new ground. However, it is clear and succinct.

A refresher never hurts.[1]  It is important to “do it right.”  Age-old Habit of “Subject to” Objections Waives Them; So Does “To the Extent” Objection (Nov. 19, 2025).

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26, “(p)arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.”[2]

The duties of a responding party are:

A party served with written discovery must fully answer each request to the full extent that it is not objectionable and affirmatively explain what portion of an interrogatory or document request is objectionable and why, affirmatively explain what portion of the interrogatory or document request is not objectionable and the subject of the answer or response, and affirmatively explain whether any responsive information or documents have been withheld. “Discovery by interrogatory requires candor in responding….The candor required is a candid statement of the information sought or of the fact that objection is made to furnishing the information.”

Although a party is not required to make an extensive investigation in responding to an interrogatory, it must review all sources of responsive information reasonably available and provide the responsive, relevant facts reasonably available. The fact that an interrogatory calls for a thorough response—one that will take time and effort to answer—does not make it improper. Where an interrogatory answer ‘‘‘as a whole disclose[s] a conscientious endeavor to understand the question[ ] and to answer fully [that question],’ a party’s obligation under Rule 33 is satisfied.”[3]

Likewise, a party must provide full and complete responses to requests for production within thirty days after being served same unless otherwise stipulated or ordered. FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(A). The responding party must either state whether the production will be provided or state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reason. Id. at 34(b)(2)(B). The production must occur “no later than the time for inspection specified in the request or another reasonable time specified in the response.” Id. at 34(b)(2)(B). A party responding to discovery must produce responsive documents not only that are within that party’s actual, physical possession, but also documents that are within the party’s constructive possession, custody or control. Id. at 34(a)(1). And while Rule 26(e) imposes an obligation to supplement responses, that provision does not provide “an extension of the deadline by which a party must deliver” its information. Rather, the purpose of this rule is to prevent prejudice and surprise.

Courts throughout the country have long interpreted the federal rules to prohibit general, boilerplate objections. Boilerplate objections use standardized, ready-made or all-purpose language without regard to the particular discovery request. General objections refer to objections that a party responding to discovery asserts as applicable to multiple individual requests set forth in a given set of discovery requests. A general objection untethered to specific requests (and is thus also a boilerplate objection) is improper.[4]

When objecting to a discovery request, the objection must state how the objection “relates to the particular request being opposed, and not merely that it is ‘overly broad and burdensome’ or ‘oppressive’ or ‘vexatious’ or ‘not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.’ ”[5] And when a party objects to a request for production, the “objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. An objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.” FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(C). Objections interposed without also indicating whether any document or information is being withheld are improper.[6]

Id. (the court’s footnotes are omitted).  The court also addressed privilege logs, Rule 37’s conference requirements,  and, Rule 37 motions.[7]

Of course, proportionality and cooperation are always important.  Historical ESI Highlights – Part VIII – Cooperation and The Cooperation Proclamation (May 31, 2022); Ethical Contours of Discovery Sanctions and the Duty to Cooperate (Sep. 7, 2023); Privilege Logs:  New Techniques to Achieve Proportionality – The “Certification Log” (Mar. 4, 2024);  Use of Phased Discovery to Achieve Proportionality (Jul. 15, 2022); Sedona Conference and Victor Stanley II Court Cite Law Review Proportionality Article (Sep. 11, 2010); cf. Relative Proportionality Argument Rejected (Sep. 24, 2024).

____

[1] E-Discovery 101 – – A Refresher on the Scope of Discovery + Boilerplate Objections Sustained (Sep. 16, 2024); Concise Summary of Scope of Discovery and Principles Governing Objections (Dec. 2, 2025); Four General Principles Governing Document Requests and Objections (Dec. 29, 2025).

[2] New Sedona Primer Implements the “Bull’s Eye View” of Discovery Requests (Dec. 8, 2021); “Old” Sedona Paper Implements the “Specificity” Provision of Discovery Responses (Dec. 9, 2021).

[3] See Rule 26(g) Sanctions for Failure to Supervise Document Collection and Review (Nov. 27, 2020); “Self-Collection” May Be Reasonable Using Ralph Losey’s Dual-Protection System (Jan. 19, 2024); Unsupervised Self-Collection Predictably Led to Problems (Jan. 2, 2021); Maker’s Mark: A Different View of Self Collection (Aug. 3, 2021).

[4] Inequitable to Find Waiver Where Improper Boilerplate Objections Were Made to Improper Requests (Feb. 27, 2026); “Boilerplate” Objections Are Generally Condemned; Except When They’re Not (Oct. 9, 2024); E-Discovery 101 – – A Refresher on the Scope of Discovery + Boilerplate Objections Sustained (Sep. 16, 2024).

[5]  Did the 2015 Deletion of “Not Reasonably Calculated” From Rule 26(b)(1) Change the Scope of Discovery? (Nov. 13, 2025); A Wake Up Call Revisited: Read the Rules & Don’t Argue “Not Reasonably Calculated” in Federal Courts (Feb. 25, 2025); “Reasonably Calculated to Lead to Discovery of Admissible Evidence” (Nov. 6, 2024).

[6]  General Objections, Dracula, and “Whac a Mole” (Apr. 16, 2024);  Court Excused Party From Waiver by Failure to Provide Specific Objections (Aug. 7, 2022).

[7] Too Busy to Respond to Discovery = Waiver of Objections & Sanctions (Nov. 1, 2024); Waiver of Untimely Objections to Interrogatories: Is it = or ≠ to Requests for Production of Documents? (Jan. 29, 2025).