Deposition Conduct
Use this against improper coaching by an opponent. IPS Group, Inc. v. Duncan Solutions, Inc., 2017 WL 3457141 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2017) (Counsel admonished for improperly using "calls for a legal conclusion " objection to coach deponents).
Production from Service Providers
Use this to obtain all files from international providers like Google. In re Search of Information Associated with [redacted]@gmail.com, 2017 WL 3445634 (D.D.C. Jusy 31, 2017) (Stored Communications Act subpoena may compel production by US company of data stored on servers located abroad).
Proportionality
Use this to defend a small business client on proportionality grounds. Panel Specialists, Inc. v. Tenawa Haven Processing, LLC, 2017 WL 3503354 (D. Kan. Aug. 16, 2017) (Request for years work of mark-up data was not proportional where sole office employee of small family-owned company gave affidavit saying it would take her weeks of work to comply).
Spoliation Sanctions
Use this to defend letting employees collect their own documents. New Mexico Oncology and Hematology Consultants, Ltd. v.. Presbyterian Healthcare Svcs., 2017 WL 3535293 (D.N.M. Aug. 16, 2017) (Declining to sanction party for allowing employees discretion to determine what emails were relevant to litigation hold, but noting a server-side hold is better practice in light of how inexpensive electronic storage has become).
Use this to force the other side to pay their sanctions. Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 2017 WL 3492166 (D. Md. Aug. 15, 2017) (Following up on the well-known sanctions case by finding defendant Pappas in civil contempt for repeated failure to make any pay,nets on the more than $1 million in discovery sanctions).
Boilerplate Objections
Use this to show that what used to be motion briefing now needs to be what your objections look like. In re Haynes, 2017 WL 3559509 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 11, 2017) (Criticizing party's boilerplate objections and noting that eventual motion to compel briefing contained the level of detail that should have appeared in the initial objections).
©2026 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.
