Krachen v. Price

Filing 25

MINUTE ORDER striking 22 Motion to Compel by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 04/01/14. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1)(jhawk, )

Sample Written Discovery Dispute Chart1
Submitted by (Plaintiff/Defendant)
Case No: 00-cv-00001

No./Type of Discovery
Request

Disputed Response(s) or
Objection(s)

Problem With Response

Plaintiff’s Rog No. 2

1. Overbroad and
burdensome; 2. Vague
and ambiguous

Information sought is
reasonably defined and
limited in scope.

Plaintiff’s Rog No. 6

1. Confidential and
proprietary; 2. Remote in
time

No privilege log provided.
No explanation for time
objection.

General Objection No. 2

Responses are based on
information that is
presently available.

Not applied in any specific
response, therefore
waived.

Plaintiff’s RFP No. 8

1. Attorney-client privilege;
2. Not relevant; 3.
Overbroad and
burdensome; 4. Vague
and ambiguous

No privilege log provided.
Reasonably calculated to
lead to discovery of
admissible evidence.
Information sought is
reasonably defined and
scope is limited.

1

Acceptable abbreviations include “Rog” for Interrogatory, “RFP” for Request for Production; “RFA” for
Request for Admission; “SDT” for Subpoena Duces Tecum.