Objections (including discovery), Evidence, Testimony, Foundation Witnesses

Mn Evidence Rules Summary Guide 8th Edition – see this for the best information

 

Evidence & Testimony

Relevancy

Under Minn. R. Evid. 401, evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable.” Relevancy is a low bar, requiring only that the evidence, even if remotely, assists the fact-finder in resolving the ultimate issue. State v. Swinger, 800 N.W.2d 833, 839 (Minn. App. 2011), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 2011).

 

Heresay

Hearsay is an out of court statement offered “to prove the truth of the matter
asserted.” Minn. R. Evid. 801(c). The rules of evidence bar the admission of hearsay evidence unless an exception to the rule against hearsay applies. Minn. R. Evid. 802.

• Rule 803.Hearsay Exceptions; Availability of Declarant Immaterial: MN Court Rules
• Rule 804.Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable: MN Court Rules
• Rule 807.Residual Exception: MN Court Rules

 

Discovery

In nearly all cases, there should be no objections to interrogatories or RPD.  Objections to discovery should be use sparingly and cautiously.

Broad, Vague, Burdensome, Unreasonable, Unlikely to lead to discovery of evidence

• Objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, argumentative, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (This is a classic general objection you should use sparingly. Boilerplate objections do not go over well with judges.)
• Objects to this interrogatory because this interrogatory is so broad, uncertain, and unintelligible that the client cannot determine the nature of the information sought. Therefore, the client cannot provide an answer.
• Objects because the identification, photocopying, and production of the requested documents would be oppressively burdensome and costly. The information or documents will be made available for review at their storage location during business hours at a mutually convenient time. Alternatively, upon request, the client will provide the (other party) with an estimate of what it would cost to procure and produce these documents, and the parties can agree on the cost of such a production.
• This Request is objected to as not likely to lead to the discovery of any evidence that is relevant to any issue that is pending before the court.
• Objects to this interrogatory as it imposes an unreasonable time constraint for a response. The deadline provided for the response does not allow a reasonable amount of time to gather and provide the requested information.

Confidential Info & Attorney-Client Privledge

• <Petitioner/Respondent> objects to the Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or documents protected from disclosure pursuant to the attorney/client privilege and/or work product doctrine.
• Objects to this interrogatory because it requests confidential and/or proprietary information. The information sought is sensitive and disclosure would compromise personal or business confidentiality. As plaintiffs’ lawyers, this one one we see often but not one we have ever used.

Legal Conclusions & Speculation

• Objects to this interrogatory because it calls for the (petitioner/respondent) to make a legal conclusion. (Don’t go crazy with this one, either. “An interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, but the court may order that the interrogatory need not be answered until designated discovery is complete, or until a pretrial conference or some other time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2).)
• Objects because this interrogatory calls for pure conjecture and speculation. (It is not the client’s job to guess what would have happened in an alternative universe.)

Harassment / Self Incrimination

• Objects because the answer to this question may violate the party’s protection against self-incrimination.
• Objects to this interrogatory because the only possible purpose of this request is to harass and cause hardship to the plaintiff and needlessly increase the cost of litigation to the plaintiff or her counsel.

Compilation or Summary

• Objects to this interrogatory because it asks for a compilation, summary, or analysis of documents or information. Creating such a compilation or summary would require undue effort and is beyond the scope of standard discovery requests.

Unknown til after Discovery

• Objects to this interrogatory in that it requests information that will not be known until after additional discovery is completed.

Duplicative

• Objects to this interrogatory as it is duplicative of prior requests. The information sought has already been requested in previous interrogatories or discovery requests, making this interrogatory unnecessary.

Possession of OPP

• Objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information in the possession of, known to, or otherwise equally available to the other party.

Exceeded # of Interr

• Objects to this interrogatory because the (petitioner/respondent) had exceeded the number of interrogatories allowed by Minnesota law.