Practitioner Discovery Tip: Your Discovery Objection is Meaningless (Shh, Don't Tell the Client).

We all know how it works when you get discovery from an opposing party:  have your secretary pull up some form responses, start loading it up with objection after objection; make sure to object to the definitions and instructions; pretend you have no possible understanding of what is being asked for; parse every word of every request and tease out every available meaning, no matter how absurd, so you can object on vagueness grounds, and basically jerk the other side around, buy some time, and get them to "narrow" the requests so you can go through the whole process all over again.

Oh yeah -- then bill the client 12.2 hours.

Well, apparently Judge Rosenbaum thinks this kind of approach may be problematic:

Objections that state that a discovery request is “vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome” are, standing alone, meaningless and do not comply with both the Local Rules and Rule 34’s requirement that objections contain a statement of reasons. See Pitts v. Francis, 2008 WL 2229524, *2 (N.D. Fla. May 28, 2008). A party objecting on these grounds must explain the specific and particular way in which a request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome. In addition, claims of undue burden should be supported by a statement (generally an affidavit) with specific information demonstrating how the request is overly burdensome. See Benfatto v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 2008 WL 4938418, *4 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 19, 2008) (citing Convertino v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 565 F. Supp. 2d 10, 14 (D.D.C. 2008)). Since Morgan has not indicated how Request 4 is overly broad or unduly burdensome and because she has further not provided any evidentiary support for her bald assertion of burdensomeness, the Court overrules Morgan’s objection in this regard and grants the Receiver’s Motion to Compel a complete response to Request 4.

Nice job Judge!

(The Force is strong with this one.)

This Seems Like a Good Idea.

Especially with Magistrate Judge Rosenbaum testifying live right now before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

On March 14 and 15, call your senators toll free at 1-866-338-5720*and urge them to give President Obama’s judicial nominees an up-or-down vote. Senate Republicans, in their unprecedented obstruction, are filibustering 17 of President Obama’s district court nominees to the federal bench. A few facts to highlight:

• At this point in the Bush administration, the average district court nominee waited 22 days for confirmation. The average wait time for President Obama’s district court nominees is 93 days.
• At this point in the Bush administration, the Senate had confirmed 140 district court nominees. Only 105 of President Obama’s district court nominees have been confirmed.
• On average, each of the 17 filibustered nominees has been waiting more than 210 days since nomination. The vast majority of these nominees were approved either unanimously in the Senate Judiciary Committee, or with only Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) opposing.

The judicial vacancy crisis is grinding the federal judiciary to a halt. Half of all Americans – over 160 million of us – live in judicial districts or circuits that have a vacancy that would be filled today if the Republican obstruction of judicial nominations would end. And eight of these 17 filibustered nominees represent districts in which there is a judicial emergency.

There is precedence for the Senate to act. On November 2, 2002, Senate Democrats confirmed 17 of President Bush’s district court nominations – plus a circuit court nomination – all by voice vote.

 Is there really any good reason to oppose this?

"Beliefs" Are Not "Personal Knowledge."

Someone tell all the politicians and pundits who work off their "gut":

In reviewing summary-judgment affidavits and declarations, the Eleventh Circuit and other courts have held that similar statements of “belief” or “understanding” do not reflect personal knowledge and should be disregarded.

 They're also not relevant for the same reason:

Because Rosen has not shown any personal knowledge about whether the parties entered into an arbitration agreement, his statements about that subject are also irrelevant.

How refreshing!

In other news, a few tipsters advise of another big checking overdraft settlement.

If the "anticipated" becomes the reality -- congratulations!

Oh yeah, Super Bowl yada yada yada, commercials M&Ms yada yada yada (ok, it was a pretty good game and Madonna rocked the house).