Q: If the defendant did not follow the instructions and objected to every question in discovery & interrogatories what I do
Civil Personal Injury
A: A discovery dispute is a two step process: (1) The law first requires that you confer with the opposing party in an effort to work through the dispute. If your attempt(s) to resolve the dispute do not work, then you go to the next step (2) File a motion to compel with the Court against the defendant. In the motion, you need to certify to the Court that you tried to resolve the issues by agreement (i.e. No. 1) but that your efforts failed.
This question is eye-catching because of what could be a discovery ruse that government defendants always pull and always get away with before sympathetic judges. There is not enough information here to opine exactly as to what is happening, but reading between the lines is possible.
There is a policy shift taking place across the nation in tort cases involving municipalities. Judges are instructed to dismiss personal injury cases and to do so in clever ways. For example, a judge can enter multiple discovery orders requiring documents and depositions, and then refuse to enforce those orders suddenly dismissing a municipal entity. In such cases, defendant municipalities object to each and every discovery demand: the demand is over broad, is irrelevant, is too voluminous, seeks information from an undefined period, assumes non-established facts, is ambiguous, seeks privileged information, is duplicative, is of the wrong party and so on. All of these responses are code for a defendant who is impervious to discovery thanks to the trial judge.
If this action is for a medical malpractice in a municipal hospital, the same rules apply, and the same result accrues. The idea is to reduce frivolous cases to reduce the cost of health care in this country, and judges are hand-picked by their constituent district leaders to enforce that policy despite established tort and procedural law. In such a case, a lawyer who is not afraid of the judicial apparatus will move for sanctions, and then appeal. If the appellate court is in on the ruse, then the attorney will appeal higher until he gets to a point where the law and procedural rules are followed despite political pressures to snuff out plaintiff's municipal and medical malpractice cases.
Such attorneys are few and far between as few attorneys want to muddy the apparatus that pays their bills. As to what to do, the asker must ask his lawyer.
Justia Ask a Lawyer is a forum for consumers to get answers to basic legal questions. Any information sent through Justia Ask a Lawyer is not secure and is done so on a non-confidential basis only.
The use of this website to ask questions or receive answers does not create an attorney–client relationship between you and Justia, or between you and any attorney who receives your information or responds to your questions, nor is it intended to create such a relationship. Additionally, no responses on this forum constitute legal advice, which must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. You should not act upon information provided in Justia Ask a Lawyer without seeking professional counsel from an attorney admitted or authorized to practice in your jurisdiction. Justia assumes no responsibility to any person who relies on information contained on or received through this site and disclaims all liability in respect to such information.
Justia cannot guarantee that the information on this website (including any legal information provided by an attorney through this service) is accurate, complete, or up-to-date. While we intend to make every attempt to keep the information on this site current, the owners of and contributors to this site make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to from this site.