It is sufficient to state that documents were withheld or describe the limits of the search undertaken to identify documents responsive to document requests. Unlike treatment of privileged documents, Rule 34 does not require a log of withheld documents.
Prior to changes to Rule 34 in 2015, it was not uncommon for a party to object to a document request, but state also that documents would be produced without making clear whether any documents were actually withheld based on the objection. These requirements are intended to limit confusion caused when a party objects to a document request, yet still produces responsive information. Specifically, Rule 34(b)(2)(B) and (C) require that parties responding to document requests “state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons” and also that an “objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection.”
Rule 34 requires “specificity” when objecting to document requests and also requires responding parties to state whether material is being withheld based upon objection. Fun fact: When responding to document requests during the discovery phase of litigation, rather than stating documents were withheld (as now required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34), attorneys may simply describe the limits of the search used to identify responsive documents.
0 kommentar(er)
