Comprehensive Defense Checklist

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF DISCOVERABILITY

_______________________________

) Case No.:

George Putton, )

Submitting Party, ) RESPONDING PARTY’S MOTION

) FOR A

v. ) PROTECTIVE ORDER

Elvis Smith, ) AND

Responding Party ) NOTICE OF MOTION

______________________________ )

Elvis Smith by and through his attorneys hereby moves, pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that this court grant an order limiting the discovery of the Submitting Party, by granting one or more of the following measures of relief:¹

(A) That the disclosure or discovery not be had;

(B) That the disclosure or discovery be had only upon specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place;

(C) That the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery;

(D) That certain matters not be inquired into or that the scope of the disclosure or discovery be limited to certain matters;

(E) That the discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the court;

(F) That a deposition, after being sealed, be opened only by order of the court;

(G) That a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a designated way;

(H) That the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the court, and

(I)That the moving party be awarded expenses per Rule 37(a)(4).

This motion is predicated upon the following reasons, and is supported by the Declaration and Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached:

I. OBJECTIONS PERTAINING TO TIME LIMITS:

(1) The discovery sought by the Submitting Party is premature because, though prohibited by local rules, Submitting Party nevertheless scheduled or conducted his discovery prior to the early conference set forth in the applicable rules.²

(2) Requests of the Submitting Party were filed, or are scheduled to occur, after the discovery cut-off date contained in the applicable court rules or pre-trial orders.³

(3) Even though the request was filed within the applicable discovery cut-off date, it was nevertheless unreasonably and unjustifiably delayed to the detriment and prejudice of the Responding Party; moreover, the discovery cut-off dates were not intended to serve as a device for excusing or promoting such delays.

 (4) The time period specified in the document request is unreasonably long and, therefore, overbroad, requiring the Responding Party to attempt to locate very old or missing documents that may be difficult, if not impossible to find.⁴

II. OBJECTIONS PERTAINING TO THE SCOPE OF DISCOVERY:

(1) The discovery and disclosures sought by the Submitting Party are totally irrelevant and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of any admissible evidence.⁵

(2) The discovery and disclosures sought by the Submitting Party are totally irrelevant, will not lead to the discovery of any admissible evidence, and were designed as the result of ulterior motives to obtain information that is completely unrelated to the material issues of this litigation.⁶

(3) The discovery sought by the Submitting Party includes materials and information that do not fall within the permissible range and limits of discovery as set forth by the court in its Pre-Trial Order dated ____. ⁷

 (4) It appears from the Complaint, Answer and all other pleadings that the discovery and disclosures sought by the Submitting Party are totally unrelated to any “claim or defense of any party.” The disclosures, therefore, exceed the scope of permissible discovery.⁸

(5) The discovery and disclosures sought by Submitting Party are not only irrelevant and unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, they are also overbroad. Therefore, the Submitting Party has demanded far more materials than required.⁹

III. OBJECTIONS PERTAINING TO LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OR CONTROL:

(1) The Responding Party is being required to provide information or documents that he does not have.¹⁰

(2) The Responding Party is repeatedly being asked questions for which he lacks information or knowledge, and the Responding Party has, on several occasions, informed the Submitting Party of this fact.¹¹

(3) The Responding Party, having conducted a reasonable investigation and search, has been unable to locate or otherwise obtain the requested information. ¹²

(4) The information and/or documents requested by the Submitting Party are in the possession and under the control of individuals other than the Responding Party.¹³

(5) The request directs the production of property or materials or the inspection of premises that are not presently under the control of or within the possession of the Responding Party.

IV. OBJECTIONS ALLEGING NON-EXISTENCE :

(1) The materials which are the subject of the request have been lost or destroyed and, therefore, are no longer in the possession of the Responding Party. Moreover, the Responding Party has conducted an extensive diligent search in an unsuccessful attempt to locate the property.

(2) To the knowledge of the Responding Party,¹⁴ the materials which are the subject of the request never existed.

(3) The requested materials no longer exist because they were destroyed or lost as part of routine, good faith clean-ups conducted in the ordinary course of business.

(4) The requested electronically stored materials no longer exist because they were accidentally over-written when more recent material was stored.^13.1

V. OBJECTIONS PERTAINING TO PRIVILEGE:

(1) The discovery and disclosures sought by the Submitting Party are subject to the Attorney-Client Privilege.¹⁵

(2) The discovery and disclosures sought by the Submitting Party are subject to the Physician-Patient Privilege.¹⁶

(3) The discovery and disclosures sought by the Submitting Party are subject to the Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege.¹⁷

(4) The discovery and disclosures sought by the Submitting Party are subject to the Clergyman-Penitent Privilege.¹⁸

(5) The discovery and disclosures sought by the Submitting Party are subject to the Accountant-Client Privilege.¹⁹

(6) The discovery and disclosures sought by the Submitting Party are subject to the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination.²⁰

(7) The discovery and disclosures sought by the Submitting Party are subject to the Privilege Not to Testify Against a Spouse.²¹

(8) The discovery and disclosures sought by the Submitting Party are subject to the Privilege for Confidential Marital Communications.²²

(9) The discovery and disclosures sought by the Submitting Party are subject to the Parent-Child Privilege.²³

(10) The discovery and disclosures sought by the Submitting Party are subject to the Informant-Police Privilege.²⁴

(11) The discovery and disclosures sought by the Submitting Party are subject to the Journalist-News Source (i.e. Shield Law) Privilege.²⁵

(12) The discovery and disclosures sought by the Submitting Party are subject to the Social Worker-Client privilege.²⁶

(13) The discovery and disclosures sought by the Submitting Party are subject to the Sexual Assault Victim-Counselor Privilege.

(14) The discovery and disclosures sought by the Submitting Party are subject to the Domestic Violence Victim-Counselor Privilege.

(15) The discovery and disclosures sought by the Submitting Party concern information that was subject to a confidential relationship; the information, if disclosed, would result in damage and harm that exceeds any benefits that Submitting Party might otherwise derive from its disclosure.

VI. OBJECTIONS PROTECTING TRADE SECRETS:

(1) The request seeks to expose trade secrets or commercially...