Discovery 101 – Court Sets Out Ground Rules to Resolve Discovery Dispute

Discovery 101 – Court Sets Out Ground Rules to Resolve Discovery Dispute by Michael Berman, E-Discovery LLC.
Image: Holley Robinson, EDRM with AI.

[EDRM Editor’s Note: The opinions and positions are those of Michael Berman.]

The order in Bouie v. Alzayadi, 2025 WL 2042261 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 21, 2025)(Stafford, J.), clearly sets out a series of rules governing discovery disputes.

At a status conference, each party asserted that the other had not adequately responded to discovery requests.

Judge Stafford wrote: “The Court’s efforts to resolve the disputes informally during the status conference were unsuccessful, so the parties’ discovery disputes must be resolved through motion practice.”

The Court’s efforts to resolve the disputes informally during the status conference were unsuccessful, so the parties’ discovery disputes must be resolved through motion practice.

Bouie v. Alzayadi, 2025 WL 2042261 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 21, 2025).

The court then reiterated the ground rules for resolution, which I quote below, without repeating the court’s citation to authorities:

“Any such motion must be signed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g),” the “stop and think” rule.1

“The parties’ arguments in any motions to compel discovery must address relevance to a specific claim or defense, and the proportionality factors under Rule 26(b)(1).”2

“The Court will reject any argument that relies on the language of Rule 26(b)(1) before it was amended in 2015 or caselaw that interprets that outdated language.”3

“A party requesting documents must describe each request with reasonable particularity.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(A).4

“A document request should not ‘call on the producing party to engage in a subjective guessing game of whether a document is responsive.’”

“Courts have long condemned omnibus “any and all” document requests.”5

“The rules also require objections to interrogatories and requests for production of documents to be made with specificity.”6

“A party objecting to a request for production of documents as burdensome must support that objection with affidavits, other evidence, or enough information to allow the Court to make a common-sense judgment.”7

“Boilerplate objections are legally meaningless and amount to a waiver of an objection.”8

“And ‘a party cannot cloak its answers in without-waiving objections.’ … In other words, ‘[a] party either objects to production or produces. If it produces, the objections are generally deemed waived.’”9

“The Court will not tolerate a party unilaterally and unreasonably deciding that requested discovery is not relevant or discoverable under proportionality based solely on its own litigation position.”10

The Court will not tolerate a party unilaterally and unreasonably deciding that requested discovery is not relevant or discoverable under proportionality based solely on its own litigation position.

Bouie v. Alzayadi, 2025 WL 2042261 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 21, 2025).

“Of note, to the extent that a responding party claims privilege, it must provide a privilege log as described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii).”11

“Also bearing emphasis is Rule 26(a)(2)(A)’s requirement that ‘a party must disclose to the other parties the identity of any [expert] witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705.’”

“Disclosures are required for each expert, regardless of whether the expert has been specially retained to provide expert testimony. Rule 26(a)(2)(B) & (C).”

And “[t]reating physicians who are testifying about their diagnoses and treatment of a plaintiff are almost certainly relying upon their specialized training and knowledge, so the subject matter of their testimony and a summary of the facts opinions to which they will testify are required under Rule 26(a)(2)(C).”

The Bouie court concluded its textbook recitation of ground rules by stating:

The parties are warned that failure to engage in cooperative discovery or other violations of the discovery rules or court orders may give rise to sanctions, including a recommendation to involuntarily dismiss the case.

Bouie v. Alzayadi, 2025 WL 2042261 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 21, 2025).

Notes

  1. For more information on Rule 26(g), see Golden Oldie #5 – Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(g) and the “Discovery Budget” (Apr. 20, 2025); Does Maryland Have an Analog to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(g)? (Dec. 23, 2022); Rule 26(g) Sanctions for Failure to Supervise Document Collection and Review (Nov. 27, 2020). ↩︎
  2. For more information on the timing for motions to compel, see When Must a Motion to Compel Be Filed? (Aug. 26, 2024); When Must a Motion to Compel Be Filed?  – Part 2 (Sep. 6, 2024); Another Cinderella Situation –Motion Denied as Untimely? (May 31, 2024); Plaintiffs Raised This Issue With the Court Too Late (Oct. 7, 2024). ↩︎
  3. For more information on the key date of December 2015, see Historical ESI Highlights – Part X – Dec. 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Jun. 2, 2022). ↩︎
  4. For more information on requests, see New Sedona Primer Implements the “Bull’s Eye View” of Discovery Requests (Dec. 8, 2021); If You Don’t Ask the Right Question, You Won’t Get the Answer (Feb. 8, 2025). ↩︎
  5. Cf. Requests for “Any and All” Documents Are Obsolete (Feb. 4, 2021); Requests for “Any and All” Documents Are Obsolete – Update (Jul. 6, 2024), with Requests for Documents “Sufficient to Show,” Instead of “Any and All” Documents (Jun. 30, 2025). ↩︎
  6. For more information on objections, see General Objections, Dracula, and “Whac a Mole” (Apr. 16, 2024); “Boilerplate” Objections Are Generally Condemned; Except When They’re Not (Oct. 9, 2024); Court Excused Party From Waiver by Failure to Provide Specific Objections (Aug. 7, 2022); E-Discovery 101 – – A Refresher on the Scope of Discovery + Boilerplate Objections Sustained (Sep. 16, 2024). ↩︎
  7. For more information on responses and objections, see “Old” Sedona Paper Implements the “Specificity” Provision of Discovery Responses (Dec. 9, 2021); Obstructionist Discovery is Called Out by Court (May 31, 2025). ↩︎
  8. See n. 6, above. ↩︎
  9. For more information on waiver, see Too Busy to Respond to Discovery = Waiver of Objections & Sanctions (Nov. 1, 2024). ↩︎
  10. For parallel analyses addressing unilateral decisions, see Relevance Redactions Rejected – Rule 26(f) Resolution (Mar. 23, 2022); “Civil Vigilantism” – Sanctions for Surreptitious “Self-Help” Investigation (Mar. 9, 2023); “Self Help” Discovery in Someone Else’s Dropbox is Held to be Sanctionable (Nov. 10, 2023). ↩︎
  11. For more information on protecting privilege and privilege logs, see Bad Faith Assertion of Privilege – 91% Error Rate (Jul. 14, 2025); Privilege Log Entry Was Relevant to Inquiry Notice Where Time-Bar Was at Issue (Jul. 6, 2025); Privilege Log Deemed Partially Inadequate (Jun. 19, 2025); Non-Party Law Firm Ordered to Provide Defaulting Client’s Affidavit to Support Claim of Client’s Privilege (Jun. 5, 2025); No Privilege Log is Necessary in Limited Circumstances When Discovery Requests Are Overbroad (Apr. 5, 2025); Privilege Logs, Null Sets, Search Strings, and Number of Custodians in One Decision (Jan. 27, 2025); The “Part and Parcel” Principle (Jan. 23, 2025); Citing the Correct Subsection of Fed.R.Evid. 502 is Important (Nov. 19, 2024); Privilege Objections Denied Without Prejudice (Nov. 11, 2024); Example of a Categorical Privilege Log (Sep. 23, 2024); Privilege Log Entry That Document is “A-C Privileged and/or Work Product” Held Insufficient (Aug. 28, 2024); How to Create a “Metadata” or “Metadata Plus” Log Using a Litigation Review Platform (Aug. 7, 2024); Agreement in ESI Protocol to Provide a “Metadata-Only” Privilege Log Was Enforced (Jul. 22, 2024); Do You Have to Ask an Opponent for a Privilege Log? (Jun. 25, 2024); Court Holds Privilege Was Waived by Failure to Timely Provide a Privilege Log (May 30, 2024); How Much Detail is Enough in a Privilege Log? (Apr. 9, 2024); Privilege Logs:  New Techniques to Achieve Proportionality – The “Certification Log” (Mar. 4, 2024). ↩︎

Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies per EDRM GAI and LLM Policy.

Author

  • Miichael Berman's headshot

    Mike is the owner of E-Discovery, LLC, and of counsel at Rifkin Weiner Livingston LLC, in Baltimore. He concentrates on commercial litigation and offers mediation services. He was the primary editor of Electronically Stored Information in Maryland Courts (Md. State Bar Ass’n. 2020), and he co-edited M. Berman, C. Barton, and P. Grimm, eds., Managing E-Discovery and ESI: From Pre-Litigation Through Trial (ABA 2011), and J. Baron, R. Losey, and M. Berman, eds., Perspectives on Predictive Coding (ABA 2016). Mike has litigated a number of cases in the trial and appellate courts in Maryland. He is an Adjunct Professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law where he co-teaches a three-credit discovery workshop that focuses on e-discovery. He has lectured at the Maryland Judicial College and he chaired the Bar committee that drafted the proposed ESI Principles for the District of Maryland. He is a past: co-chair of the Federal District Court Committee of the Maryland State and Federal Bar Associations; chair of the Litigation Section Council, Maryland State Bar Association; and, co-chair of the American Bar Association Litigation Section Book Publishing Board. He graduated from the University of Maryland School of Law and is also an Army veteran. He is admitted to the Maryland bar. The opinions expressed in this blog are not necessarily those of Rifkin Weiner Livingston LLC.

    View all posts