Southern Lumber Co. v. Thompson

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that the party resisting discovery does not carry this burden by asserting “conclusory or boilerplate objections that discovery requests are irrelevant, immaterial, unduly burdensome, or overly broad”
• ruling that an objecting party “must specifically show in its response to the motion to 1 Defendants repeatedly assert that “Plaintiffs fail to explain” the relevance of this subpoena discovery (ECF 288, at 10
• stating that a party that does not support an objection to a discovery request in response to a motion to compel has abandoned that objection
• stating that the objecting party must show “how each request for production . . . is objectionable (emphasis added)
• nothing that a request is facially overbroad when it seeks documents concerning a broad range of items with no limiting language
• objections initially raised but not relied upon in response to motion to compel will be deemed abandoned

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).