NEW LAW in 2019 | Objections to RPDs Must Be More Specific

New Discovery Rule Ends General Objections to Requests for Production of Documents

There is a significant rule change for family law proceedings, too. Early in January, the Tennessee Supreme Court amended Rule 34 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, effective July 1, 2019.

Under revised Rule 34.02, all objections to the production of documents and things during discovery must be made with specificity. This puts an end to a party’s use of generalized objections to avoid producing requested documents and things (including requests for entry upon land for inspection and other purposes).

From here on in, general objections to discovery requests for production are improper and should be rejected by the court. (The court’s ruling on the objection is final and appealable.) Instead, every objection to a discovery request for production must state “with specificity the grounds and reasons for objecting” and “whether any responsible materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection.”

No more vague, boilerplate, generalized objections to requests for production in divorce or child custody matters. Instead, specific grounds for objection must describe why the party objects and provide the reasoning in a straightforward manner. An objection should reasonably inform the party requesting discovery what precisely is objectionable and why.

The purpose of the amended rule is to encourage resolution of discovery disputes without constantly turning to the judge for a ruling. This could help parties save on litigation costs, but will not entirely eliminate the need for judicial rulings during the discovery process. With amended Rule 34.02, general objections to requests for production are no more.

Author’s note: As of writing this blog post, I have had a 25 year career.  Not once has an opposing counsel ever asked me whether an objection I made on behalf of a client resulted in withholding materials otherwise responsive to the request.  (Yes, I know I was not required to respond under the Rules of Civil Procedure, but there is no harm in asking.)  Second note: That being said, existence of documents which are equally available are very common in divorces, obviously.  I know each judge will handle documents which are equally available in their own way, but keep in mind if a document is equally available (joint banking records) and neither party produces them, could a judge sustain an objection to admission for failure to disclose the documents?  That would be a mess I could see happening especially if the required response to a request for production of documents was not in compliance with this new rule.  Hmmm.