![]() ![]() The party resisting discovery bears the burden of proving “specific matters are indeed subject to privilege or protection.” Williams v. ![]() ![]() _ also refuses to provide (a) a written response to Plaintiff’s RPD, so that Class Counsel can know what paragraph thereof produced documents pertain to, or (b) an index, which makes it difficult for Class Counsel to ever establish that Defendant has failed to produce documents.Ĥ. Defendant’s “privilege”, “work product”, and “confidential and proprietary” objections should be overruled and rejected, on the grounds that Defendant has made no attempt to prove the applicability of those objections, has given Plaintiff no opportunity to contest those claimed objections by filing a privilege log, all contrary to law, but has instead arrogated unto itself the ‘right’ to decide its own objections and thatĬ. Defendant has waived any “privilege”, “work product”, “confidential or proprietary” or similar “objections”. This is a well-known and universally rejected tactic of discovery abuse. That is the well known “dribbling” technique, whereby Defendant dribbles out documents over time to prevent a plaintiffs’ counsel from obtaining all the evidence which exists so that he/she may assimilate it, plan and take depositions using the entire body of documentary evidence, and prepare for trial. ![]() On March _, 2007, defense counsel _ sent a letter to Class Counsel enclosing some documents (merely those documents which are publicly available), in which letter _refused to identify which paragraph of Plaintiff’s discovery that production was responsive to, and in which letter _stated that Defendant would “produce additional documents on a rolling basis”, that is, if and when Defendant so chooses. Thus do Defendant’s responses totally defeat the primary object of “discovery” – to determine what does and what does not exist.Īfter failing to produce a single document by the deadline imposed by the rules – February _, and despite having not asked Class Counsel or the Court for more time – Defendant simply changed the rules, and decided, for itself, that it was not required to produce documents except when and if it chose so to do. Defendant’s responses make it impossible to determine, with respect to every paragraph of Plaintiff’s discovery, whether facts or documents do or do not exist. Thus did Defendant presume to don the judicial robs and ‘rule’ that certain unspecified facts and documents are privileged or work product or confidential so that Defendant did not have to disclose the same. To every inquiry, Defendant interposed “attorney-client privilege”, “work-product protection”, and a “confidential and proprietary information” objections, without identifying any fact or document withheld based on such objections, without making any showing whatsoever that any fact or document was subject to such objection and without providing any kind of privilege log. The responses included boiler-plate “general objections” which totally preclude any determination whether Defendant is withholding or concealing facts or documents. Those responses failed to identify a single useful fact, or make a single unqualified admission, or produce a single document. On _, after Defendant’s counsel had spent much of three days with the Court in hearings and had received very clear directives from the Court, Defendant filed its responses to Plaintiff’s _th ROGS, _th RFAs, and _th RPDs. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |