Takeaway
In short, this case teaches that discovery requires informed, particularized, and proportionate advocacy—not boilerplate objections or unlimited demands—and that cooperation is part of, not contrary to, effective adversarial practice.
Six current or former production workers brought a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and related Maryland wage statutes against Mayflower entities, labor-service entities, and an individual defendant. They alleged that defendants failed to pay overtime and made unlawful wage deductions.
Plaintiffs served interrogatories and document requests. After receiving what they viewed as inadequate responses, they moved to compel. Many disputes were resolved after briefing, but the record revealed that several defendants had asserted generic, boilerplate objections to discovery requests, while plaintiffs had sought broad categories of records. The court held a hearing, focused on both the defects in defendants’ objections and the possible disproportionality of plaintiffs’ requests, and directed counsel to confer under a structured process before returning any remaining disputes to the court.
Issue #1
Whether defendants’ boilerplate objections to interrogatories and document-production requests were adequate under Rules 33 and 34.
Holding
No. The non-particularized objections failed to comply with Rules 33(b)(4) and 34(b)(2), and the objections were therefore waived absent good cause.
Reasoning
Rule 33 requires that objections to interrogatories be stated with specificity, and Rule 34 likewise requires particularized responses to document requests. Generic assertions that a request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, or unlikely to lead to admissible evidence do not explain how the objection applies to the particular request at issue.
The court treated the lack of specificity as presenting defendants with an unfavorable choice. Either counsel had no factual basis for the objections, suggesting a failure to conduct the reasonable inquiry required by Rule 26(g), or counsel had discovered facts supporting a valid objection but waived reliance on them by failing to state them specifically.
Although waiver ordinarily could justify requiring production despite the responding party’s unarticulated concerns about cost or burden, the court did not simply order wholesale production. Rule 26(b)(2)(C) independently required the court to limit discovery that was cumulative, obtainable more conveniently, or disproportionate to its likely benefit.
Issue #2
Whether Rule 26(g) requires counsel to conduct discovery cooperatively, responsibly, and with attention to proportionality.
Holding
Yes. Rule 26(g) imposes an affirmative, objectively assessed duty on counsel to make a reasonable inquiry before serving discovery requests, responses, or objections, and to ensure that they are legally justified, proper in purpose, and not unreasonably burdensome or expensive.
Reasoning
By signing a discovery request, response, or objection, an attorney certifies that, after reasonable inquiry, it is consistent with the rules and existing law, is not made to harass, delay, or needlessly increase litigation costs, and is not unreasonable or unduly expensive in light of the case’s needs, prior discovery, amount in controversy, and importance.
The rule addresses both forms of discovery abuse. It prohibits reflexive objections that lack a factual basis, but it also restrains overly broad, duplicative, and costly demands by the requesting party. Its purpose is not to restrict legitimate discovery; rather, it requires lawyers to pause, investigate, and tailor their positions to the actual circumstances of the case.
The court rejected the idea that cooperation is inconsistent with adversarial litigation. Parties may continue to advocate vigorously for their clients while candidly exchanging enough information to identify legitimate discovery needs, reduce avoidable expense, and present any genuine remaining disagreements for judicial resolution.
Rule 26(g)(3) makes sanctions mandatory when a certification violates the rule without substantial justification. The court emphasized that sanctions serve both to address the individual violation and to deter broader discovery practices that make civil litigation needlessly costly.
Issue #3
How the court should resolve the remaining discovery dispute when defendants waived objections but plaintiffs’ requests might nevertheless be disproportionate.
Holding
The court required a good-faith, structured meet-and-confer process focused on damages, proportionality, alternative sources, and phased discovery before deciding any unresolved requests.
Reasoning
The existing record did not provide enough information to assess the actual burden and expense of the remaining discovery or to balance that burden against the likely benefit. The court therefore required counsel to estimate the foreseeable range of damages, including the potential effect of collective-action certification, and to estimate plaintiffs’ anticipated attorney’s fees. Those estimates would help define the amount in controversy and a proportionate discovery budget.
Counsel were directed to identify what discovery had already been produced and to evaluate the remaining requests under Rule 26(b)(2)(C). Defendants bore the burden of supplying particularized factual support for any claim that a request imposed excessive burden or cost.
The court also instructed counsel to consider phased discovery. Producing the most promising and least burdensome sources first could give plaintiffs useful information quickly and allow them to reassess whether broader discovery remained necessary. Any unresolved disputes could then be returned to the court in a focused format that would permit prompt rulings.