A growing number of federal courts have confirmed that the once-common discovery practice of asserting an objection, followed by a bare “conditional” response, i.e., stating that “Without waiving the stated objections, defendant will produce non-privileged responsive documents,” is now considered improper and may result in an inadvertent waiver of the party’s stated objections.
It has become common practice among many litigators to respond to a discovery request by stating the party’s objection, followed by a conditional response. For instance, practitioners routinely respond to a discovery request by stating, “Subject to and without waiving the stated objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged responsive documents.” Many federal district courts are concluding that such a conditional response, without specifying which part is objected to and which part is being responded to, is improper and, most significantly, that a party may waive its objections by responding conditionally. Sprint Comm. Co., L.P. v. Comcast Cable Comm., LLC, No. 11-02684-JWL, 2014 WL -------, *4–8 (D. Kan. Feb. 11, 2014), available at https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2011cv2684-177. view more