Kristensen v. Credit Payment Servs., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165489 (D. Nev. Nov. 24, 2014) seems to have been a discovery battle. This particular order concerned second amended (per court order) responses to requests for production. They contained nearly three pages of general objections, followed by specific, additional objections to specific requests for production. “The court finds that CPS’s general and additional objections are boilerplate objections which are designed to evade, obfuscate, and obstruct discovery. Black’s Law Dictionary defines the word ‘boilerplate’ as ‘Ready-made or all-purpose language that will fit in a variety of documents.'” Id. (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Ed.)
The objections were struck. “The court fully appreciates that the vast majority of litigators are trained to make these types of objections. Asserting frivolous objections is often confused with zealous advocacy of a client’s interests.” The court also referenced the quote discussed in my November 10, 2014 post about boilerplate objections being made by junior attorneys. “The same can be said of CPS’s general objections and boilerplate objections accompanying each of the document requests in dispute.”
Don’t waste time with boilerplate objections. They will just be struck and attorneys’ fees may be awarded against you.