Liguria Foods, Inc. v. Griffith Laboratories, Inc.
320 F.R.D. 168
N.D. Iowa2017Background
- Liguria Foods sued Griffith Laboratories for breach of implied warranties after Liguria’s pepperoni began rancidating prematurely; trial reset for May 1, 2017.
- During discovery both sides served responses containing numerous "boilerplate" objections (e.g., "overbroad," "premature," "subject to and without waiving").
- Judge Bennett ordered attorneys (except local counsel) to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for discovery abuses and directed briefing and an evidentiary hearing.
- Counsel admitted using boilerplate objections out of training, culture, and fear of unilateral waiver, but disclaimed improper purpose and emphasized cooperative discovery conduct otherwise.
- The court found most challenged responses violated Rules 26, 33, and 34 (lack specificity, failed to log privileged materials, improperly asserted "premature" objections) but declined to impose sanctions because counsel acted professionally and worked cooperatively to resolve disputes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether blanket "boilerplate" objections comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33/34 | Liguria conceded many objections lacked specificity but said they were not made for improper purpose and some responses contained explanations | Griffith said boilerplate language preserved rights while parties met and conferred and did not cause extra work or delay | Court: Boilerplate objections are improper and fail Rules 33/34 specificity requirements; they do not reliably preserve objections |
| Whether privilege assertions complied with Rule 26(b)(5) (privilege log) | Liguria pointed to limited explanatory responses for some items | Griffith claimed some objections were intended to preserve privilege until protective order or conferral | Court: Both sides failed to provide required privilege logs; privilege-based objections were deficient |
| Validity of "premature" objections and sequencing under Rule 26(d) | Plaintiffs argued some discovery was premature | Defendants argued timing preserved rights while narrowing time frames | Court: "Premature" is not a valid objection where discovery was timely under Rule 26(d); Rule 26(d)(3) permits any sequence |
| Whether sanctions under Rule 26(g) or inherent authority were appropriate | Liguria argued no improper purpose, proposed remedial alternatives (CLE presentations) if sanction found | Griffith argued conduct wasn’t extreme, opposed sanctions though willing to educate | Court: Although conduct violated discovery rules and ordinarily could justify sanctions, court exercised discretion not to sanction given professionalism, cooperative resolution, and lack of demonstrated prejudice; stern warning and new local order prohibit boilerplate objections going forward |
Key Cases Cited
- Sentis Group, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 763 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2014) (discovery scope cannot be unilaterally limited by a party’s theory; discovery is an investigatory tool)
- PaineWebber Group, Inc. v. Zinsmeyer Trusts Partnership, 187 F.3d 988 (8th Cir. 1999) (Rule 26(b)(5) privilege-log requirement explained)
- St. Paul Reins. Co., Ltd. v. Commercial Fin. Corp., 198 F.R.D. 508 (N.D. Iowa 2000) (Rule 26(g) obligations and court’s authority to impose sanctions for improper discovery conduct)
- Cargill, Inc. v. Ron Burge Trucking, Inc., 284 F.R.D. 421 (D. Minn. 2012) (waiver of objections for untimely or nonspecific responses examined)
- Zimmerman v. Bishop Estate, 25 F.3d 784 (9th Cir.) (courts may inquire into signer’s knowledge and motivation when assessing discovery sanctions)
- Oregon RSA No. 6 v. Castle Rock Cellular, 76 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 1996) (standard for imposing Rule 26(g) sanctions is objective; court may consider actual knowledge and motivation)