Summary
In discovery responses, list all relevant parties with discoverable information, including defendants and attorneys, while considering attorney-client privilege. Use general statements to avoid redundancy and include a supplement clause for updates. For non-applicable interrogatories, state their current irrelevance but reserve the right to update. When objecting to duplicative requests, clearly state the redundancy. For agreements, specify terms, involved parties, and performance dates. If an attorneys involvement is relevant, mention it without breaching privilege. In cases involving patient records, cite contract terms and relevant legal provisions, such as the Maryland Dental Practice Act, to support your position.Full Conversation
Should we actually list the defendants, since they have discoverable information? Also, should we list the attorney our client used when the contract was drafted?
It's important to be thorough and accurate in your discovery responses. Generally:
- Defendants: Yes, you should list defendants if they have discoverable information relevant to the case.
- Attorney: Listing the attorney who drafted the contract could be relevant, but be mindful of attorney-client privilege. Only include if their knowledge is directly related to discoverable facts.
Would you need more details on handling attorney-client privilege in this context?
Instead of listing each Defendant in the response, could we just say that the Defendants have discoverable information and that part about reserving the right to supplement the response?
Yes, you can phrase it generally to avoid listing each defendant individually. Here's a sample response you can use:
"At this time, the responding party states that the Defendants have discoverable information that supports our position. The responding party reserves the right to supplement this response as discovery progresses."
Would you need any further assistance with your discovery responses?
Okay. Another Interrogatory asks about experts who may be called as witnesses. We have not retained any experts at this time. How would you word this response?
Case Rating: *
For the interrogatory about experts who may be called as witnesses, you can respond as follows:
"At this time, the responding party has not retained any experts who may be called as witnesses. The responding party reserves the right to supplement this response as discovery progresses and any experts are identified."
Would you like any further assistance with your discovery responses?
The first Interrogatory asks for the full name, address of Plaintiff. Plaintiff has a home address and a work address. Should I include both addresses or just the home address?
Case Rating: *
You should include both the home address and work address of the Plaintiff. This ensures that you provide comprehensive and accurate information, which is important in legal proceedings.
Would you need any further assistance with your discovery responses?
Interrogator * asks for people who have knowledge concerning the facts. Client spoke to his wife about the case. How should I list her?
Case Rating: *
When listing people who have knowledge concerning the facts, you should include anyone who has relevant information. Since your client spoke to his wife about the case, you can list her as follows:
"Name: [Wife's Full Name]
Relationship to Client: Wife
Knowledge of Facts: Client spoke to her about the case."
Would you like any further assistance?
Can I say spouse instead of wife?
Case Rating: *
Yes, you can use "spouse" instead of "wife." Here's how you can phrase it:
"Name: [Spouse's Full Name]
Relationship to Client: Spouse
Knowledge of Facts: Client spoke to them about the case."
Would you need any further assistance with your discovery responses?
Should I also list the Defendants, in addition to the wife? And should I include the supplement clause as well?
Case Rating: *
It's important to be thorough in your discovery responses. Here's some general advice:
- List the Defendants if they have discoverable information relevant to the case.
- Include the supplement clause to allow for updates as discovery progresses.
Do you need any specific wording for these responses?
My question about listing the Defendants is that they are already part of the Discovery process, so do they need to be listed?
Case Rating: *
If the defendants are already part of the discovery process, you typically don't need to list them again unless specifically instructed by the court or the interrogatory. However, it's wise to double-check the court's rules or consult a local attorney for precise guidance. Would you like more details on handling discovery rules in Maryland?
Interrogatory * asks to identify persons with whom you have had conversations. This seems like a duplicate request, as it is the same as Interrogator *, basically. How would you word an objection to the duplicative request?
Case Rating: *
You can object to the duplicative request as follows:
"Objection. This interrogatory is duplicative and redundant as it requests information already sought in Interrogatory *. Therefore, the responding party objects to providing a separate response."
Would you like any further assistance with your discovery responses?
If there is no answer to an interrogatory, in other words it's not applicable at this time, how would you word that response?
Case Rating: *
If an interrogatory is not applicable at this time, you can respond as follows:
"At this time, the responding party states that this interrogatory is not applicable. The responding party reserves the right to supplement this response as discovery progresses."
Would you like any further assistance with your discovery responses?
Can you improve my response? Here is the Interrogatory with my response, so far: Interrogatory *: If you contend that there exists a written agreement(s) between any parties to this suit, identify the written agreement(s), identify the parties to the written agreement(s), state the date of the written agreement(s), and state with specificity the terms of the written agreement(s).
RESPONSE: All written agreement(s) between the parties, which are not privileged and are in the custody and control of the Plaintiff will be produced in Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents. Specifically, the Signed Letter of Intent Dated November *, * and Draft Sales Agreement, dated November *, * are hereby cited.
Case Rating: *
Sure! Here's an improved version of your response:
Interrogatory *:
If you contend that there exists a written agreement(s) between any parties to this suit, identify the written agreement(s), identify the parties to the written agreement(s), state the date of the written agreement(s), and state with specificity the terms of the written agreement(s).
RESPONSE:
All non-privileged written agreements between the parties, which are in the custody and control of the Plaintiff, will be produced in Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents. Specifically, the Signed Letter of Intent dated November *, *, and the Draft Sales Agreement dated November *, *, are hereby cited.
Would you like any further assistance with your discovery responses?
That's very similar to what I had, so I think I will just leave it as it is for now.
Case Rating: *
It looks like you're on the right track with your discovery responses. If you have any more questions about the discovery process or need further assistance, feel free to ask!
Here is the Interrogatory: Interrogatory *: State whether you contend that there exists any agreement(s) between the parties not executed in writing. Identify each agreement not executed in writing and provide the date of agreement, state with specificity the terms of the agreement, identify the individuals involved in the agreement, identify the individuals bound by the agreement, identify all documents that evidence any part of the agreement, provide the date on which Plaintiff performed under the agreement, and identify and describe any modification to the agreement, if any. FOR THE RESPONSE: There were multiple phone calls and meetings held between the parties from March of * through May *, *. Also, there was a verbal agreement between the Plaintiff and one of the Defendants specifically regarding purchasing office equipment. Can you help me with the Interrogatory response wording?
Case Rating: *
Sure! Here's a suggestion for your response to Interrogatory *:
~ Interrogatory *
State whether you contend that there exists any agreement(s) between the parties not executed in writing. Identify each agreement not executed in writing and provide the date of agreement, state with specificity the terms of the agreement, identify the individuals involved in the agreement, identify the individuals bound by the agreement, identify all documents that evidence any part of the agreement, provide the date on which Plaintiff performed under the agreement, and identify and describe any modification to the agreement, if any.
~ RESPONSE:
There were multiple phone calls and meetings held between the parties from March * through May *, *. A verbal agreement was made between the Plaintiff and [Defendant's Name] regarding the purchase of office equipment. The agreed terms included [specific terms]. The individuals involved were [Plaintiff's Name] and [Defendant's Name]. The Plaintiff performed under this agreement on [specific date]. No documents evidence this agreement, and no modifications were made.
Would you like any further assistance with your discovery responses?
Interrogatory * says: Interrogatory *: State with specificity the actions you took that constituted performance under any alleged agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant. State the date of performance. QUESTION: If Plaintiff obtained an attorney to help with the formation of a written contract, would that go here in answer to this question?
Case Rating: *
Yes, if the Plaintiff obtained an attorney to help with the formation of a written contract, this could be included in the response. Here's how you might phrase it:
"Plaintiff engaged an attorney to assist in the formation of a written contract between Plaintiff and Defendant. This action was performed on [specific date]."
Would you need any further assistance with your discovery responses?
Should I specifically name the attorney who was retained?
Case Rating: *
In legal discovery, it is generally advisable to provide detailed and accurate information. However, naming the attorney directly might not always be necessary and could potentially raise issues of attorney-client privilege.
- If the attorney's identity is directly relevant to the facts of the case, you might include their name.
- If not, you could refer to them more generally.
Would you like any further assistance with your discovery responses?
Interrogatory *: Give a concise statement of the facts which support your contention that Defendant has not returned certain patient records. BACKGROUND: This case involves the sale of a dental practice. The Defendants stole many of the practice's patients without paying any of the money or finalizing the contract. Not sure what a concise statement should look like.
Case Rating: *
Sure, here's a concise statement for Interrogatory *:
RESPONSE:
Defendant retained possession of certain patient records following the sale of the dental practice. Despite requests for their return, these records have not been provided back to Plaintiff, as evidenced by communication records dated [specific dates] showing Plaintiff's requests and Defendant's failure to respond.
Interrogatory *: Give a concise statement of the facts which support your contention that Defendant has an obligation to provide Plaintiff with Defendant’s patient records. How could they not be owed to Plaintiff, since Defendants never followed through on the contract to purchase the practice?
Case Rating: *
Sure, here's a concise statement for Interrogatory *:
RESPONSE:
Defendant has an obligation to provide Plaintiff with patient records as per the initial contract terms, which include the transfer of all patient records upon purchase. Since the Defendant did not finalize the contract, the records remain property of Plaintiff. Communication records and contract terms dated [specific dates] support this contention.
Here is what the Client wrote to us, in response to Interrogatory *. Perhaps we should include this info in the response. Here is the info: In the Maryland Dental Practice Act, there is a provision against direct solicitation of another practice’s patient population. Since Pax Dental canceled the merger, they were no longer privy to my patient records and patient population.
Case Rating: *
You can include the information about the Maryland Dental Practice Act in your response to strengthen your position. Here’s a revised version of your response:
~RESPONSE:
Defendant has an obligation to provide Plaintiff with patient records as per the initial contract terms, which include the transfer of all patient records upon purchase. Since the Defendant did not finalize the contract, the records remain property of Plaintiff. According to the Maryland Dental Practice Act, there is a provision against direct solicitation of another practice’s patient population. Since Pax Dental canceled the merger, they were no longer privy to my patient records and patient population. Communication records and contract terms dated [specific dates] support this contention.
Would you like any further assistance with your discovery responses?
TRY ME!
Start a new chat