Objections to Written Discovery Requests: Overly Broad

      An overly broad discovery request lacks specificity as to time, place, and/or subject matter being requested. However, overbroad is not a valid objection unless it can be shown that the request imposes an undue burden or seeks discovery that is not relevant to the subject matter of the case. When objecting to discovery on the grounds of over-breadth, be prepared to be specific and provide plenty of support for your objection. The producing party has the burden “to provide sufficient detail in terms of time, money and procedure required to produce the requested documents...unless it is obvious from the wording of the request itself that it is overbroad, vague, ambiguous or unduly burdensome, an objection simply stating so is not sufficiently specific.” City of Seattle v. Prof’l Basketball Club, LLC, 2008 WL 539809 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 25, 2008).

      Objections based on over-breadth often relate to the issue of relevance of the subject matter. Pursuant to both C.R.C.P. 26(b)(1) and F.R.C.P. 26(b)(1), any discovery sought must be likely to lead to the discovery of admissible information (which, to be admissible, must be relevant). Relevancy is broadly construed under the rules, and C.R.C.P. 26(b)(1) states that, “For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Thus, when objecting to discovery on the grounds that it is overly broad and lacking relevance, be prepared to demonstrate that the requested discovery either (1) does not come within the scope described in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1); or (2) is of such marginal relevance that the potential harm occasioned by discovery would outweigh the ordinary presumption in favor of broad disclosure.  Simpson v. University of Colorado, 220 F.R.D. 354, 350 (D. Colo. 2004).  However, “when a request for discovery is overly broad on its face or when relevancy is not readily apparent, the party seeking the discovery has the burden to show the relevancy of the request.” Cunningham v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 2008 WL 2668301 (D. Colo. July 1, 2008).

 

      Following are some sample objections to overly broad discovery requests, including applicable legal authority. Always verify case law to ensure that it is up-to-date.

     1. This discovery request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense. The request is calculated to annoy and harass. “Although the law generally favors discovery, the scope of discovery is not limitless.” Silva v. Basin Western, Inc., 47 P.3d 1184, 1188 (Colo. 2002).

     2. Objection is made to the production request because it is overly broad and is not in compliance with C.R.C.P. 34(b), which requires the request to specify the items to be produced or inspected, either by individual item or category, and describe with reasonable particularity each item and category.

     3. This request is overbroad, and it constitutes an abuse of the discovery process, because it purports to ask [Producing Party] to plead and prove its entire case, and to marshal all evidence, in response to one written interrogatory.

     4. This interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome because it requires [Producing Party] to create and provide the equivalent of a lengthy narrative or otherwise detailed account, witness by witness, of its entire case. “Blockbuster interrogatories constitute an unduly burdensome request as a matter of law and are an abuse of the discovery process. Interrogatories should not require a party to provide a narrative account of his case.” Grynberg v. Total S.A., Inc., Civil Action No. 03-cv-01280-WYD-BNB, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28854 *18 (D. Colo. May 3, 2006).

     5. This request is overly broad and unduly burdensome because it attempts to require [Producing Party] to provide a narrative account of each potential witness’ anticipated testimony and to develop a narrative account of each and every potential defense, affirmative defense, and counterclaim [Producing Party] may assert in this action. “Each interrogatory should consist of a brief, simple, direct, and unambiguous question, dealing with one point only. The question should be objective and non-argumentative. They should not seek narrative answers or attempt to argue, cross-examine, or impeach.” Hilt v. SFC. Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182, 186-187 (D.Kan. 1997).

      Objecting to a discovery request on the grounds that it is overly broad presents both a challenge and an opportunity.  Carefully frame the issues, provide specific details and facts, and support your objection with the appropriate legal authority.  Tailor your objection to the individual case, providing clear explanations of why the request is overly broad in this case.  Effectively doing so demonstrates to the court that you are not making “boilerplate” objections, and provides you with an opportunity to prevail over counsel who abuse the discovery process.

Objections to Written Discovery Requests: Unnecessarily Burdensome

     Objections that a discovery request is unduly burdensome, oppressive, or unreasonably duplicative are often valid, but opposing counsel will probably initially assume this is merely a "boilerplate objection."

     All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by C.R.C.P. 26(b)(2)(F) for cases filed in Colorado state courts, and by F.R.C.P. 26(b)(2)(C) for cases filed in United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Both the State and Federal Rules require that the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery if it determines that:

      (i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;

      (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action;

      (iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues; and

      (iv) whether, because of the number of parties and their alignment with respect to the underlying claims and defenses, the proposed discovery is reasonable.

     If you decide to object based on subjective grounds such as unnecessarily burdensome, oppressive, or unreasonably duplicative, the specific discovery response should state what less-burdensome scope is appropriate. Your written response should clearly convey how the objection is being used to constrain the scope of the party’s document production, or the information being provided in response to an interrogatory. By using this approach, you will comply with the Rules’ requirement that objections be stated in response to each specific discovery request, and you will avoid a lack of clarity and reduce the likelihood that the court will view your objection as invalid. Bear in mind that while an objection on the grounds of unnecessarily burdensome is often valid, it is rarely a basis for not providing a response.  (Subject to such objection and without waiving same, Plaintiff responds as follows…)  Instead, this objection is normally useful to protect the responding party when they are making only a partial response to the request.

     Following are some suggested ways in which you may state your objection. Be sure to tailor the objection to your specific discovery response and the facts of your case:

     -  It would be unduly burdensome, oppressive, and unreasonably duplicative to again produce the requested information. [Provide a brief description of when/in what form the same information has already been produced.]

     -  This discovery request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the [Producing Party]. The request is calculated to annoy and harass Plaintiff. [Expound on time, scope, burden and expense in your response.] 

     -  Objection is made to the production request because the discovery sought is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. [Consider doing the math to support this objection; provide information about the source that is less burdensome.]

     -  Objection is made to the production request because the burden and expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues.  [Explain specifically why this is so].

     -  Objection on the basis and to the extent that the information requested requires the production of documents that are in the possession or control of a third party and are not in the possession or control of [Responding party]. [Responding party] further objects to the production of documents that are already in the possession of [Requesting party] or subject to his/her control as such production would be unduly burdensome to [Responding party].