Boilerplate objections in discovery are stock phrases ("overly broad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated...") pasted into a response without saying how they apply to the request. The Federal Rules do not allow them: Rules 33(b)(4) and 34(b)(2)(B) require the grounds to be stated with specificity, and Rule 34(b)(2)(C) adds that each objection must say whether anything is being withheld.
What the rules actually require
Three provisions do the work. This guide covers federal court; state discovery rules may differ.
| Rule | What it requires | Consequence in the text |
|---|---|---|
| Rule 33(b)(4) | "The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity." | "Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure." |
| Rule 34(b)(2)(B) | The response must "state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons." | None stated |
| Rule 34(b)(2)(C) | "An objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection." | None stated |
Two details get missed. First, Rule 34 has no waiver sentence of its own. The 2015 committee note says it "adopts the language of Rule 33(b)(4), eliminating any doubt that less specific objections might be suitable under Rule 34." Some courts then borrow Rule 33's waiver logic. Second, under Rule 33(b)(5) the attorney who objects must sign the objections.
On the withholding statement, the note says the producing party "does not need to provide a detailed description or log of all documents withheld, but does need to alert other parties to the fact that documents have been withheld and thereby facilitate an informed discussion of the objection." And a request can be narrowed by the objection itself: "An objection that states the limits that have controlled the search for responsive and relevant materials qualifies as a statement that the materials have been 'withheld.'"
Fischer v. Forrest: the 2017 wake-up call
A case lawyers often cite on post-2015 boilerplate is Fischer v. Forrest, Nos. 14 Civ. 1304 & 1307 (PAE) (AJP), 2017 WL 773694 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2017) (Peck, M.J.). The opinion opens: "It is time, once again, to issue a discovery wake-up call to the Bar in this District." He wrote that "[m]ost lawyers who have not changed their 'form file' violate one or more (and often all three)" of the Rule 34 changes.
The defendants' responses to the plaintiff's document requests carried 17 general objections, incorporated into every response, and then said "Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing general objections which are hereby incorporated by reference into each response...." Judge Peck found, among other defects:
- General objections. Incorporating all of them into each response "violates Rule 34(b)(2)(B)'s specificity requirement as well as Rule 34(b)(2)(C)'s requirement to indicate whether any responsive materials are withheld on the basis of an objection. General objections should rarely be used after December 1, 2015 unless each such objection applies to each document request (e.g., objecting to produce privileged material)."
- The burden objection. The responses calling requests "overly broad and unduly burdensome" were "meaningless boilerplate. Why is it burdensome? How is it overly broad? This language tells the Court nothing."
Then the warning: "From now on in cases before this Court, any discovery response that does not comply with Rule 34's requirement to state objections with specificity (and to clearly indicate whether responsive material is being withheld on the basis of objection) will be deemed a waiver of all objections (except as to privilege)."
It is one magistrate judge announcing how he will rule in his own cases, not a national rule, and a prospective warning rather than a finding that these defendants waived anything. He ordered them to revise their responses.
What courts say about "subject to and without waiving"
No federal rule mentions the phrase, and the case law is not uniform.
Heller v. City of Dallas, 303 F.R.D. 466 (N.D. Tex. 2014) (Horan, M.J.), is a frequently cited opinion on the subject. It predates the 2015 amendments and arose on a Rule 26(g) sanctions motion. The court noted that responding "subject to" objections "has become common practice among many practitioners" and did not sanction it. But it concluded that, outside privilege and work product, the practice "is not consistent with the Federal Rules," calling it, in another court's words, "manifestly confusing (at best) and misleading (at worse), and has no basis at all in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Id. at 486-87. Its reasoning: the manner of responding "leaves the requesting party guessing and wondering as to the scope of the documents or information" that will be provided, and (quoting another court) such an objection and answer "preserves nothing and serves only to waste the time and resources of both the Parties and the Court."
Fischer does not hold that the phrase waives anything on its own. Its waiver warning attaches to responses that lack specificity or a withholding statement.
That leaves a spectrum: decisions quoted in Heller treat an answer as waiving the objection, while Heller itself called the practice improper but declined to sanction it. The practical rule: look for your judge's standing order and your district's decisions before you rely on, or object to, the phrase.
The safest drafting does not depend on the answer: object, say what the objection excludes, and say what you are producing.
Five boilerplate objections to discovery, rewritten
Each rewrite below does three things the rules require: it ties the ground to the request, it states the limit the responding party is applying, and it says whether anything is withheld. Bracketed facts are placeholders; the rewrite works only if the facts are true and checked, and under Rule 26(g)(1) the signer certifies a reasonable inquiry.
1. Vague
Before: "Defendant objects that the request is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Defendant will produce responsive documents."
After: "Defendant objects that 'relating to the Project' is ambiguous because the contract defines two projects. Defendant construes the term to mean the [Riverside] project and will search for documents on that project. No documents are being withheld on the basis of this objection."
Why: Heller reasons that a responding party must, if possible, state its understanding of the allegedly vague term and answer on that basis. If a request truly cannot be understood, Heller says to stand on the objection rather than answer.
2. Overbroad
Before: "Objection. This request is overly broad."
After: "Defendant objects that a request for all communications 'from 2008 to present' is overbroad because the dispute concerns the 2019 agreement. Defendant will produce communications dated January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2021, from custodians [A] and [B]. Communications outside that period or from other custodians are being withheld on the basis of this objection."
Why: The 2015 note says an overbreadth objection "should state the scope that is not overbroad," and the withholding statement can identify "as matters 'withheld' anything beyond the scope of the search specified in the objection."
3. Unduly burdensome
Before: "Defendant objects that the request is unduly burdensome."
After: "Defendant objects that searching the archived email of 40 former employees would require restoring [N] backup tapes at an estimated cost of $[amount] and [X] weeks of vendor time. Defendant will instead search the active accounts of the five custodians who handled the account. Responsive documents held only in the archives are being withheld on the basis of this objection."
Why: A party resisting discovery must show how a request is burdensome, and in the Northern District of Texas that means affidavits or other evidence revealing the nature of the burden. Heller, 303 F.R.D. at 490. If you cannot fill in the numbers, you may not have a burden objection yet. Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Services Co., 253 F.R.D. 354, 359 (D. Md. 2008) (Grimm, M.J.), put it sharply: boilerplate burden objections can be "prima facie evidence of a Rule 26(g) violation," because a lawyer who made a reasonable inquiry "should have disclosed" the facts in the objection.
4. Privileged
Before: "Defendant objects to the extent the request seeks privileged material. Subject to and without waiving..."
After: "Defendant is withholding [N] emails between Defendant and its outside counsel, [Firm], dated [range], on the basis of attorney-client privilege and will serve a privilege log under Rule 26(b)(5)(A) by [date]."
Why: Privilege is Judge Peck's example of a general objection that can apply to every request, and he exempted it from his waiver warning. But "to the extent" language still leaves the requester wondering whether anything exists. Heller made that point about privilege objections too. Rule 26(b)(5)(A) requires you to expressly make the claim and describe what is withheld well enough that others can assess it.
5. Not proportional
Before: "Defendant objects that the request is not proportional to the needs of the case."
After: "Defendant objects under Rule 26(b)(1) that producing every draft of the 400 form agreements is not proportional: the amount in controversy is $[amount], the drafts add little to the operative terms, and Defendant estimates [X] hours of review. Defendant will produce the executed versions and the final template. Intermediate drafts are being withheld on the basis of this objection."
Why: Rule 26(b)(1) lists the factors: importance of the issues, amount in controversy, relative access to information, resources, importance of the discovery, and whether burden or expense outweighs likely benefit. A proportionality objection that names the factor it relies on is already most of the way to specific.
The 30-day clock
Under Rule 33(b)(2) and Rule 34(b)(2)(A), answers and objections are due within 30 days of service (for a Rule 34 request delivered early under Rule 26(d)(2), within 30 days after the first Rule 26(f) conference). Rule 6(d) adds three days when service was by mail. A late Rule 33 objection is waived absent good cause, and no drafting fixes that, so calculate the date the day the requests arrive, including any local rule on extensions. Rule 36 responses follow their own rules; see our guide to requests for admission.
Before you file the motion: a meet-and-confer checklist
On the receiving end of boilerplate, the letter you send before a motion to compel matters. Rule 37(a)(1) requires the motion to include a certification that you conferred or tried to confer in good faith, and the letter is your evidence.
- Quote the response. Identify each request and the exact objection language.
- Tie it to the rule. Cite 33(b)(4) for interrogatories and 34(b)(2)(B)-(C) for objections to requests for production.
- Ask the withholding question. For each objection: "Are documents being withheld on the basis of this objection? If so, what category and date range?"
- Ask for the scope. For overbreadth and burden objections: what search is being run, over which custodians, sources and dates?
- Ask for the date. When will production start and finish?
- Address "subject to." Ask whether the objection is being asserted or abandoned, and cite your judge's or district's decisions, if any.
- Set a deadline and keep the record. Dated letters and a call summary become your motion exhibits.
If it comes to a motion, Rule 37(a)(4) treats an "evasive or incomplete" response as a failure to respond, and Rule 37(a)(5)(A) provides that when the motion is granted the court "must" require the offending party or attorney to pay the movant's reasonable expenses, after an opportunity to be heard, unless an exception applies (the movant skipped the good-faith conference, the response was substantially justified, or an award would be unjust). Rule 26(g)(3) separately requires an appropriate sanction on the signer, the party, or both for an improper certification made "without substantial justification," an exposure like the one in our Rule 11 guide.
Frequently asked questions
Are boilerplate objections waived in federal court?
Rule 33(b)(4) says any interrogatory objection ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court excuses it for good cause. Rule 34 has no equivalent sentence, but some courts apply the same logic to unspecific document-request objections. Whether a vague objection is overruled, treated as waived, or sanctioned varies by judge and district.
Is "subject to and without waiving" improper?
No federal rule mentions the phrase, and no national rule bans it. Some courts, such as the Northern District of Texas in Heller v. City of Dallas, call it manifestly confusing and inconsistent with the Rules. Heller itself declined to sanction it, and the phrase remains common. Check your judge's standing order and your district's decisions.
What does Rule 34(b)(2)(C) require in an objection?
Rule 34(b)(2)(C) requires every objection to state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. An objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest. The 2015 committee note says no detailed log is required, only notice that something is withheld.
Are general objections allowed in discovery responses?
Rarely. In Fischer v. Forrest, a Southern District of New York magistrate judge wrote that general objections should rarely be used after December 1, 2015, unless each applies to every request, such as an objection to producing privileged material. Incorporating a list of them into every response defeats the specificity and withholding-statement requirements.
What is the deadline to serve discovery objections?
Thirty days after service under Rules 33(b)(2) and 34(b)(2)(A), unless the parties stipulate or the court orders otherwise. Under Rule 33(b)(4), an interrogatory ground not stated in a timely objection is waived absent good cause. Count calendar days under Rule 6(a), add three under Rule 6(d) if service was by mail, and calendar the date the day the requests arrive.
Cite-check the letter before it goes out
A meet-and-confer letter is only as good as its citations. In CaseRead, the matter workspace keeps the response deadlines on the calendar, and research chat can pull your district's rulings on boilerplate objections, with cited sources. Before the letter goes out, run its citations through the free Hallucination Shield: no signup, up to 50 per run, and it flags any it cannot verify. If AI helped write the letter, see how to verify AI-generated citations.
This article is for general information and is not legal advice. For guidance on a specific case, consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.