Slabaugh v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., Dist. Court, SD Indiana 2013 – Google Scholar.
In this case the defendant electronics company took three months to respond to discovery requests, instead of responding in the required 30 days. The court held that the long delay forfeited the objections to the discovery requests. These waivers are rarely enforced.
The court also disregarded the formal objections that are often put in discovery responses:
“When an objection generally asserts that the interrogatory or request is “vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome or that it is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” without demonstrating its vagueness with specificity, the objecting party has not met its burden.BASF Catalysts LLC v. Aristo, Inc., 2:07-CV-222, 2009 WL 187808 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 23, 2009) (quoting Burkybile v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 04 C 4932, 2006 WL 2325506 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 2, 2006)).”
Edward X. Clinton, Jr.
fedcivilprocedure 