Smith v. Royal Ins.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that boilerplate objections of burdensomeness lacking any evidence of the nature of the burden are insufficient to demonstrate an undue burden
• stating that “if no responsive documents or tangible things exist, . . . the responding party should so state . . . .”
• stating that a party may object to a request to the extent it seeks privileged work “so long as the responding party also provides the information required by Rule 26(b)(5)(A)”
• stating that “the party resisting discovery [must] show how the requested discovery was overly broad, unduly burdensome, or oppressive by submitting affidavits or offering evidence revealing the nature of the burden”
• noting that under the similarly worded federal rule, a plaintiff generally may seek information through an interrogatory even if the defendant believes the subject matter would be better explored through a deposition
• explaining that “[r]ule 26(d) generally governs the sequencing of discovery”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).