 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lund v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company12/6/2001
es. (See Ex. C to the Petitioner's Motion to Compel Discovery.) Claimant seeks production of the documents withheld.
Rule 24.5.324 of this Court's rules provides a specific procedure governing privilege and work product objections which are interposed in response to requests for production. It provides in relevant part:
(4) If the request is for production of the file of a party and objection is made to such production on the grounds of privilege or work product, the objecting party shall produce all documents other than those specific documents which are subject to objection. Where the objection is only to part of a document, the document shall be produced with the objected portions deleted. The objecting party shall also provide in its response a list of documents which are subject to objections, specifically identifying: (a) the type of document; (b)the number of pages of the document; (c) the general subject matter of the document;(d) the date of the document;(e) where the document is a communication, the author of the document and her/his address and the relationship of the author and the addressee;(f) whether the objection extends to the entire document or only to portions of the document; and(g) the specific privilege, including work product, which is being claimed as to each document.(5) Where the objecting party asserts that this minimal information would encroach upon the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, the party must state how disclosure of the information would violate the privilege or doctrine.(6) An objection based on a claim of attorney-client privilege or work product will be ruled on only upon the filing of a motion to compel, at which time the following procedure shall apply:(a) along with its answer brief, counsel for the objecting party shall furnish the court with a copy of its original response to the request for production and the original or a copy of all documents which are identified in the motion to compel;(b) where only parts of the document are subject to an objection, counsel for the objecting party shall identify those parts;(c) the court will review the documents in camera and sustain or overrule each objection.
The procedures outlined in Rule 24.5.324(4)-(6) are specific. If the parties wish to engage in a discovery war, they must strictly comply with the rule. The letter from St. Paul's counsel listing the documents withheld failed to set forth all of the information required in subsection (4) above. Before I will rule on the claimant's request, St. Paul must provide all the information required in Rule 24.5.324(4). Claimant must then identify the specific documents she seeks and why she believes she is entitled to each of the documents; a blanket request for production of withheld documents is insufficient. St. Paul must then respond to claimant's request, addressing each of the claimant's contentions, and provide the Court with copies of the documents in question.
D. Contention Interrogatory
Claimant propounded the following interrogatory:
INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please state all facts and inferences known to you, your agents, representatives, employees, agents or attorneys, which support or corroborate your contentions 1-12, as stated in the Response to the Petition; the name, address, and telephone number of any person known to have knowledge with respect to such contentions; and an identification as to any writing, diagram, or report supporting such contentions. (Ex. A at 4 to Petitioner's Motion to Compel ).
She received the following answer:
ANSWER: Object on the grounds that Interrogatory No. 6 is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, violates the att
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|