How Lawyers Can Defend and Win a Motion to Compel Further Discovery

How Lawyers Can Defend and Win a Motion to Compel Further Discovery

Discovery disputes are a common feature of litigation, and motions to compel often become strategic tools rather than genuine attempts to obtain information. Successfully defending against a motion to compel—and ultimately winning—requires a deliberate blend of legal authority, factual specificity, persuasive writing, and careful preservation of your client’s confidentiality and business interests. This is especially crucial when the opposing party seeks proprietary, sensitive, or business-confidential documents.

Below are key strategies and best practices to help attorneys effectively oppose and defeat a motion to compel further discovery.

1. Start With a Well-Prepared Record

Winning a motion to compel begins long before the motion is filed. Courts look closely at the parties’ conduct during the discovery meet-and-confer process. To position your opposition strongly:

Document every meet-and-confer communication.

  • Keep emails, letters, and notes showing your good-faith efforts.

  • Demonstrate responsiveness, cooperation, and willingness to narrow disputes.

Provide partial or alternative responses when appropriate.

A court is far more sympathetic to a party who has made reasonable disclosures than one asserting blanket objections.

Use clear, specific objections.

Avoid boilerplate phrases. Instead:

  • Identify why the request is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, or irrelevant.

  • Explain why the information is privileged, disproportionate, or duplicative.

This early groundwork creates the foundation for a successful opposition.

2. Emphasize Relevance and Proportionality

Under most discovery rules (Federal or state equivalents), the scope of discovery is limited to relevant, non-privileged information proportional to the needs of the case.

When opposing a motion to compel:

Challenge relevance directly.

  • Show that the request has little or no connection to any claim or defense.

  • Argue that the motion is a fishing expedition or speculative inquiry.

Argue proportionality.

Focus on:

  • The burden of locating and producing the requested information.

  • The cost relative to the value of the case.

  • The availability of alternatives (depositions, interrogatories, summary data).

Courts are increasingly receptive to proportionality arguments, especially in the age of expansive digital discovery.

3. Protect Business-Confidential and Proprietary Information

When the opposing party seeks trade secrets, internal processes, pricing structures, financials, client data, algorithms, or other confidential business material, courts require heightened safeguards.

Use the strongest applicable objections:

  • Trade-secret privilege

  • Proprietary or commercially sensitive nature

  • Data privacy statutes

  • Competitive harm

  • Lack of necessity to prove any claim or defense

Offer less intrusive alternatives:

Courts appreciate parties who seek compromise. You can offer:

  • Redacted versions

  • Aggregate summaries

  • Sampling rather than full production

  • Out-of-court affidavits instead of documents

Propose or strengthen a protective order:

If production becomes unavoidable, insist on:

  • Attorneys’-eyes-only provisions

  • Restricted access

  • Prohibition on copying or sharing

  • Secure storage requirements

  • Immediate return or destruction after litigation

Arguing confidentiality alone is rarely enough—you must demonstrate specific harm, such as competitive disadvantage, loss of trade-secret status, or exposure of sensitive client data.

4. Demonstrate Undue Burden or Impossibility

If a request requires extensive time, technical resources, or costly data extraction, emphasize this through:

Detailed declarations or affidavits

Courts give substantial weight to sworn statements describing:

  • The number of hours required

  • Technical difficulties

  • System limitations

  • The scope of manual review required

  • High costs relative to the case value

A motion to compel often fails when the opposing party can show the request is unduly burdensome or practically unachievable.

5. Use Procedural Defects to Your Advantage

If the moving party failed to follow rules, highlight it:

  • Insufficient meet-and-confer effort

  • Untimely motion

  • Overly broad notice

  • Failure to attach required documents

  • Lack of specificity in what they want compelled

Courts are strict about procedural requirements, and many motions to compel are denied for these reasons alone.

6. Argue That the Request Is Duplicative or Already Satisfied

Often, motions to compel involve requests for information the opposing party already has or could obtain through other means.

Emphasize:

  • Prior productions

  • Deposition testimony

  • Publicly available information

  • Materials already in their possession (e.g., emails they were copied on)

Courts will not compel duplicative discovery, especially if the moving party failed to review previous productions carefully.

7. Highlight Privileges and Request In Camera Review if Needed

Whenever privileged material is implicated:

  • Assert the privilege clearly (attorney-client, work product, trade secret, etc.)

  • Provide a proper privilege log

  • Offer an in camera review as a last resort
    This shows transparency and strengthens your credibility with the court.

8. Show That the Motion Is Harassing or Tactical

Courts disfavor discovery abuse. If the moving party’s requests appear motivated by:

  • Delay

  • Intimidation

  • Fishing for settlement leverage

  • Attempt to expose sensitive business information to a competitor

Then make this clear. Provide the court with context showing the discovery dispute is not legitimate.

9. Keep Your Tone Professional and Solution-Oriented

Judges appreciate clarity, conciseness, and professionalism. Your opposition should:

  • Avoid hostile language

  • Focus on facts and law

  • Present practical alternatives

  • Demonstrate good faith

Your credibility plays an enormous role in discovery outcomes.

10. Conclude With a Request for Specific Relief

Don't just oppose—ask for affirmative protections:

  • Denial of the motion in full

  • Alternatively, narrowed production obligations

  • Cost shifting (if appropriate)

  • Protective order provisions

  • Sanctions for abusive motions

Specific requests help the court craft a fair ruling.


**1. Sample Opposition Brief

(Against Motion to Compel Further Discovery — Including Confidential Business Documents)**

[CAPTION]

DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Defendant respectfully submits this Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendant’s Discovery Requests. The Motion should be denied for the reasons set forth below.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is unnecessary, overbroad, and inconsistent with the principles of proportional discovery. Defendant has already produced extensive materials, responded in good faith, and engaged in multiple meet-and-confer efforts. Plaintiff’s remaining demands seek irrelevant, disproportionate, and confidential business information that is neither necessary nor appropriate for discovery. The Motion should be denied.

II. DEFENDANT HAS COMPLIED WITH DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS

Defendant timely served written responses, produced responsive non-privileged documents, and provided detailed objections consistent with the rules. Plaintiff’s Motion mischaracterizes Defendant’s cooperation and ignores the substantial production already made.

Defendant also participated in several meet-and-confer discussions, during which Defendant clarified objections, agreed to supplemental responses where reasonable, and offered alternatives to reduce burden. Plaintiff nonetheless proceeded with this Motion without narrowing the issues.

III. PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS ARE OVERBROAD, IRRELEVANT, AND DISPROPORTIONATE

A. The Requests Seek Information Beyond the Scope of Any Claim or Defense

Several requests broadly seek “all documents” relating to entire categories of internal business operations, pricing strategies, client lists, vendor contracts, and revenue models. None of this information is relevant to the claims at issue.

Discovery is limited to material relevant to the claims or defenses and proportional to the needs of the case. Plaintiff has failed to identify how the confidential business categories they seek have any connection to the underlying dispute.

B. Plaintiff’s Requests Impose Undue Burden and Are Not Proportional

Producing the requested materials would require internal data extraction, manual review of hundreds to thousands of files, and exposure of sensitive internal information. The burden and intrusion significantly outweigh any marginal relevance.

Courts routinely deny motions to compel discovery that is oppressive or disproportionate when weighed against the value of the information sought.

IV. PLAINTIFF SEEKS CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY BUSINESS INFORMATION WITHOUT ANY SHOWING OF NECESSITY

Plaintiff demands several categories of commercially sensitive documents, including:

  • Internal pricing and profit models

  • Client and vendor lists

  • Financial statements not relevant to this litigation

  • Internal administrative policies

  • Proprietary workflow processes

Such documents constitute trade secrets and highly sensitive commercial information. Plaintiff has not made the required showing that:

  1. The information is necessary,

  2. The request cannot be satisfied by less intrusive means, and

  3. The information outweighs the harm of disclosure.

Even if production were appropriate, it should be subject to strict protective measures.

V. A PROTECTIVE ORDER IS REQUIRED IF ANY FURTHER DISCOVERY IS ORDERED

To the extent the Court orders any additional production, Defendant respectfully requests the entry of a protective order providing:

  • Attorneys' Eyes Only restrictions

  • Limited access to designated personnel

  • Prohibition on copying, sharing, or external storage

  • Return or destruction upon conclusion of the case

A protective order is necessary to safeguard Defendant’s business interests from competitive harm.

VI. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO ADEQUATELY MEET AND CONFER

The Motion should additionally be denied because Plaintiff did not meet and confer in good faith before filing. Plaintiff refused reasonable alternatives, declined to narrow requests, and filed prematurely before discussions concluded.

Courts regularly deny discovery motions based on failure to engage in the required cooperative process.

VII. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court:

  1. Deny the Motion to Compel in its entirety;

  2. In the alternative, limit the scope of any compelled discovery;

  3. Enter a protective order governing any confidential production; and

  4. Award Defendant fees and costs as appropriate.

**2. Suggested Meet-and-Confer Language

(Regarding Overbroad Requests & Confidential Business Documents)**

Here is polished, ready-to-send meet-and-confer language:

Subject: Meet and Confer Regarding Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests

Dear Counsel,

We have reviewed your recent correspondence regarding the outstanding discovery issues. As discussed, several of Plaintiff’s requests remain overbroad, not proportional to the needs of the case, and seek information that is not relevant to any claim or defense.

In particular, Requests Nos. __, __, and __ seek confidential and proprietary business information, including internal pricing structures, client lists, financial models, and operational processes. These categories are trade secret in nature and are not necessary for Plaintiff to prosecute its claims. The requests also impose undue burden given the volume of documents and required manual review.

Nevertheless, in a spirit of cooperation, we are willing to consider reasonable alternatives, including:

  • Providing summary or aggregated data;

  • Producing limited categories of documents responsive to a narrower timeframe;

  • Redacting confidential portions; or

  • Producing certain materials under an Attorneys’ Eyes Only designation subject to a protective order.

We request that you narrow the requests accordingly and identify the specific documents you believe are necessary. We are available for a call at your convenience to resolve these issues without court intervention.

Sincerely,
[Attorney Name]

**3. A Protective Order Clause

(For Business-Confidential and Proprietary Information)**

This clause can be inserted into a stipulated protective order:

Confidential and Attorneys’ Eyes Only Information

  1. Definition of Confidential Information:
    “Confidential Information” includes non-public business documents, trade secrets, financial data, client lists, internal pricing strategies, proprietary workflows, system architecture, and any information the producing party in good faith designates as confidential under this Order.

  2. Attorneys’ Eyes Only (“AEO”) Category:
    Highly sensitive business information the disclosure of which would cause competitive or commercial harm may be designated as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” AEO material may be disclosed only to outside counsel of record and necessary staff, and may not be shared with the receiving party’s employees, officers, or competitive decision-makers.

  3. Use Limitation:
    Confidential or AEO materials may be used solely for purposes of this litigation and may not be used for any business, commercial, or personal purpose.

  4. Prohibition on Copying and Dissemination:
    No party may copy, store, transmit, or share Confidential or AEO materials except as necessary for this litigation. All electronic storage must be secure and access-restricted.

  5. Return or Destruction:
    Within 30 days of final disposition, all Confidential and AEO materials must be returned or destroyed, with written certification provided to the producing party.

  6. Court Filing:
    Any filing containing Confidential or AEO materials must be submitted under seal consistent with applicable court rules.

4. Summarized Version for Clients or Website Blog

How to Defend and Win a Motion to Compel Further Discovery

When the opposing party files a motion to compel, the key to winning the dispute is demonstrating that your discovery conduct has been reasonable, proportional, and respectful of confidentiality concerns. Here are the core principles:

1. Build a strong record of cooperation.

Document meet-and-confer efforts and show that you made reasonable, good-faith attempts to comply.

2. Focus on relevance and proportionality.

Courts will not compel discovery that is broad, burdensome, or marginally relevant.

3. Protect confidential business information.

When requests seek trade secrets or sensitive business data, assert objections clearly and propose alternatives such as redaction, summaries, or production under a strict protective order.

4. Demonstrate burden and cost.

Provide declarations or explanations showing the volume of work required and why the request is disproportionate.

5. Leverage procedural rules.

If the other side failed to meet and confer, served improper requests, or filed late, highlight these deficiencies.

6. Offer reasonable compromises.

Courts favor parties who seek solutions rather than escalate disputes.

By applying these principles, lawyers can effectively oppose motions to compel, safeguard confidential information, and place themselves in a strong position to prevail both procedurally and substantively.

1. Sample Declaration Supporting Objections Based on Burden

[CAPTION]

DECLARATION OF [NAME] IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

I, [Name], declare:

  1. I am the [Title/Role] of [Company] and have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration.

  2. I am familiar with the company’s data systems, document-retention practices, and internal storage of business information relevant to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.

  3. Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. __ seeks “all documents relating to [broad category].” This category includes:

    • Thousands of internal emails,

    • Archived materials stored across multiple systems,

    • Large sets of files requiring manual review,

    • Documents containing confidential and proprietary business information.

  4. To identify and collect the requested documents, the company would be required to:

    • Search approximately ___ GB/TB of email and file archives,

    • Review approximately ___ custodians' files,

    • Manually evaluate an estimated ___ to ___ documents for privilege, confidentiality, and relevance.

  5. Based on my experience supervising similar requests, the collection and review process would require:

    • Approximately ___ hours of IT time,

    • Approximately ___ hours of employee time to locate and gather materials,

    • Substantial legal review costing an estimated $___ to $___.

  6. Much of the requested information contains confidential business strategies, pricing models, client lists, technical processes, and other trade secrets that are not relevant to the issues in this case.

  7. Compliance with the request as written would significantly disrupt business operations and impose undue burden and cost on the company.

  8. The information sought is duplicative of documents already produced or could be obtained through less burdensome means, such as interrogatories, targeted requests, or summary data.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on __________, at ______________.

_________________________
[Name]
[Title]

2. Sample Privilege Log

Below is a professional privilege log table with the required fields.

PRIVILEGE LOG

EntryDateAuthor(s)Recipient(s)Document TypeDescriptionPrivilege Asserted
110/14/2024John Smith, General CounselCEO; CFOEmailLegal advice regarding regulatory compliance risks related to new product launchAttorney–Client; Work Product
211/02/2024Litigation Counsel (External)John Smith (GC)MemorandumAnalysis prepared in anticipation of litigation concerning plaintiff's allegationsAttorney–Client; Work Product
311/18/2024Internal Finance ManagerGeneral CounselEmail + AttachmentDraft financial summary prepared at request of counsel for litigation evaluationWork Product
412/05/2024Product Development LeadGeneral CounselReportTechnical analysis created for counsel to assist in responding to claims regarding system functionalityWork Product
512/14/2024John Smith (GC)VP, OperationsEmailLegal instructions and strategy regarding document retention and litigation holdAttorney–Client

You can expand or add lines as needed.

3. Sample Business-Confidentiality Affidavit

This is used when opposing disclosure of proprietary or trade-secret information.

[CAPTION]

AFFIDAVIT OF [NAME] IN SUPPORT OF DESIGNATION OF CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

I, [Name], state as follows:

  1. I am the [Title] of [Company], and my responsibilities include oversight of the company’s internal operations, proprietary systems, and commercially sensitive information.

  2. I am familiar with the documents and categories of information Plaintiff seeks in Requests for Production Nos. __, __, and __.

  3. The requested materials include:

    • Trade-secret processes,

    • Internal pricing structures and margin analysis,

    • Customer lists and contracts,

    • Vendor terms,

    • Proprietary algorithms, workflows, and operational methods.

  4. This information is not publicly available and is subject to strict internal controls, including:

    • Access limited to select employees,

    • Password-protected systems,

    • Non-disclosure agreements,

    • Role-based access permissions.

  5. Disclosure of this information to competitors or third parties would cause significant competitive harm, including:

    • Loss of business advantage,

    • Undermining negotiating leverage with clients/vendors,

    • Exposure of cost structures and profit margins,

    • Compromising proprietary processes that differentiate the company.

  6. The information is not necessary for resolution of the claims in this case and can be addressed through alternative, less intrusive discovery methods.

  7. If any production is ordered, it should be subject to an Attorneys’ Eyes Only protective designation to prevent improper disclosure.

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on ____________ at ____________________.

_______________________
[Name]
[Title]

**4. Motion for Protective Order

(Protecting Confidential & Trade-Secret Information)**

[CAPTION]

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIAL AND TRADE-SECRET DOCUMENTS

Defendant [Company] moves under Rule 26(c) for a Protective Order limiting disclosure of certain confidential and proprietary business information sought by Plaintiff. This Motion is based on the following grounds:

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff’s discovery requests seek confidential and trade-secret information that is not relevant, is disproportionate to the needs of the case, and would cause competitive harm if disclosed. Defendant has attempted in good faith to resolve this dispute but Plaintiff refuses to narrow the requests or agree to appropriate protections.

II. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

Under Rule 26(c), a protective order is warranted when disclosure would cause annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden—including economic harm.

Defendant has demonstrated through sworn affidavit that Plaintiff seeks highly sensitive business information including:

  • Pricing strategies

  • Client lists

  • Internal financial metrics

  • Proprietary workflows

  • Non-public operating procedures

This information constitutes trade secrets and confidential commercial information.

III. DISCLOSURE WOULD CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL COMPETITIVE HARM

As set forth in the accompanying affidavit:

  • The materials are closely guarded internally,

  • Disclosure would advantage competitors,

  • Loss of confidentiality would undermine business value,

  • Exposure would compromise proprietary methods.

Such harm is precisely the type Rule 26(c) is designed to prevent.

IV. THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY IS NOT NECESSARY OR CAN BE PROVIDED IN A LESS INTRUSIVE FORM

Defendant offered reasonable alternatives, including:

  • Summaries,

  • Redacted documents,

  • Limited scope production,

  • Aggregate data,

  • Deposition testimony in lieu of raw documents.

Plaintiff rejected all alternatives.

V. REQUESTED RELIEF

Defendant respectfully requests:

  1. A Protective Order designating certain categories as Confidential or Attorneys’ Eyes Only;

  2. Limitations on the use, review, and dissemination of the information;

  3. Filing under seal of any documents containing confidential material;

  4. Return or destruction of documents after litigation;

  5. Any further relief the Court deems appropriate.

VI. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Defendant requests that the Court issue the attached Protective Order and grant such additional relief as is just.

[Attorney Signature Block]

**1. Proposed Protective Order

(Standalone — ready to file or stipulate)**

[CAPTION]

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Pursuant to Rule 26(c), the Court enters the following Protective Order to govern the handling of confidential and proprietary information disclosed during discovery.

1. Definitions

1.1 “Confidential Information”

Information that the producing party reasonably believes contains non-public business, financial, customer-related, or sensitive commercial information.

1.2 “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” (“AEO”)

A heightened confidentiality designation reserved for extremely sensitive information whose disclosure to another party (including officers, employees, or in-house counsel) would create risk of competitive or commercial harm.

1.3 “Document”

Any written, electronic, recorded, or graphic material defined under the rules of civil procedure.

2. Designation of Protected Material

A producing party may designate material as Confidential or AEO by labeling it accordingly. Inadvertent failure to designate does not waive protection; the producing party may correct designations after discovery.

3. Permitted Recipients

3.1 Confidential Information may be disclosed to:

  • Outside counsel and staff

  • In-house counsel

  • Experts and consultants

  • Deposition witnesses

  • The Court and court staff

3.2 AEO Information may be disclosed ONLY to:

  • Outside counsel of record

  • Outside counsel’s staff

  • Court personnel

  • Experts who sign an AEO acknowledgment

AEO information may not be shown to the receiving party’s officers, directors, or employees.

4. Use Restrictions

Protected material may be used solely for purposes of this litigation and not for any business, commercial, competitive, or personal use.

No party may disclose protected material to third parties, duplicate it outside necessary litigation use, or store it in locations accessible to unauthorized persons.

5. Filing Under Seal

Any protected material submitted to the Court shall be filed under seal in accordance with local rules.

6. Challenges to Designation

A party may challenge a designation by written notice. The parties must meet and confer in good faith. If unresolved, the challenging party may bring a motion, and the producing party bears the burden of establishing good cause.

7. Conclusion of Litigation

Within 30 days of final judgment or settlement, all protected material must be:

  • Returned to the producing party, or

  • Destroyed, with written certification to the producing party.

8. Survival

This Order survives the termination of the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: __________
_________________________________
Judge of the Superior Court / U.S. District Court

**2. Motion to Quash

(For Subpoena Seeking Confidential Trade-Secret Information)**

[CAPTION]

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Defendant respectfully moves to quash the subpoena served by Plaintiff under Rule 45.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff’s subpoena seeks confidential and trade-secret information unrelated to the claims at issue. It imposes undue burden, violates proportionality principles, and seeks disclosure of protected commercial data. The subpoena must be quashed.

Rule 45(d)(3) requires the Court to quash or modify a subpoena that:

  1. Requires disclosure of privileged or protected information,

  2. Requires disclosure of trade secrets or confidential commercial information,

  3. Is unduly burdensome, or

  4. Seeks irrelevant material.

III. ARGUMENT

A. The Subpoena Seeks Irrelevant Information

The subpoena demands broad categories of documents relating to:

  • Internal pricing and margin analysis,

  • Client lists, revenue streams, and contracts,

  • Proprietary operational processes,

  • Non-public financial and business modeling.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated relevance to any claim or defense.

B. The Subpoena Seeks Trade Secrets and Proprietary Information

The accompanying affidavit (filed concurrently) explains that the requested documents contain:

  • Trade secrets,

  • Confidential business strategies,

  • Competitive data,

  • Sensitive financial structures.

Disclosure would cause significant competitive injury.

C. The Subpoena Imposes Undue Burden and Expense

Compliance requires:

  • Large-scale data extraction,

  • Review of thousands of documents,

  • Expensive manual privilege/confidentiality review.

This is facially unreasonable.

D. Plaintiff Refused Reasonable Alternatives

Defendant offered:

  • Summaries,

  • Redacted versions,

  • Production under protective order,

  • Narrowed categories.

Plaintiff refused all compromises.

IV. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Defendant respectfully requests:

  1. That the subpoena be quashed in its entirety;

  2. Alternatively, severe narrowing of scope;

  3. Entry of a protective order if any production is required; and

  4. Costs and fees under Rule 45(d)(1).

Respectfully submitted,

[Attorney Signature]

**3. Sanctions Brief

(For Abusive Motion to Compel)**

[CAPTION]

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR PLAINTIFF’S MISUSE OF DISCOVERY

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff continues to file meritless motions to compel without attempting good-faith resolution. These filings have forced Defendant to incur unnecessary fees and distract from substantive case preparation. Sanctions are warranted under Rule 37.

II. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MEET AND CONFER

Plaintiff:

  • Refused multiple invitations to discuss disputed requests,

  • Declined proposed compromises,

  • Filed a renewed motion without any new information,

  • Ignored the Court’s admonitions to cooperate.

This conduct violates Rule 37(a)(1) and local rules requiring genuine efforts to resolve disputes.

III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IS FRIVOLOUS

Plaintiff seeks:

  • Documents already produced,

  • Documents acknowledged as irrelevant,

  • Confidential business information unrelated to the issues,

  • Materials previously ruled out by the Court.

The motion is objectively unreasonable.

IV. DEFENDANT INCURRED UNNECESSARY EXPENSES

Preparing the opposition required:

  • Reviewing voluminous filings,

  • Gathering declarations,

  • Preparing privilege logs,

  • Submitting protective order proposals.

These tasks were entirely avoidable.

V. REQUESTED RELIEF

Defendant requests:

  1. Monetary sanctions for fees and expenses;

  2. An order prohibiting Plaintiff from filing further discovery motions without leave;

  3. Formal admonishment regarding misuse of discovery.

Respectfully submitted,
[Attorney Name]

4. Checklist for Handling Trade-Secret Discovery Requests

Use this checklist whenever opposing requests that seek confidential information.

Trade-Secret Discovery Response Checklist

A. Analyze the Request

✔ Is the information relevant?
✔ Is the request overbroad?
✔ Does it seek internal processes, pricing, client lists, or proprietary methods?
✔ Does it implicate trade-secret laws?

B. Assert Strong Written Objections

✔ Relevance
✔ Overbreadth
✔ Undue burden
✔ Disproportionate to needs of case
✔ Trade-secret or proprietary privilege
✔ Privacy or regulatory protection (GDPR, HIPAA, etc.)

C. Prepare Supporting Evidence

✔ Draft a declaration outlining burden
✔ Draft a confidentiality affidavit
✔ Document system complexity and cost of retrieval

D. Offer Alternatives

✔ Redactions
✔ Summaries
✔ Reduced date range
✔ Sampling instead of full production
✔ Interrogatories instead of documents

E. Demand a Protective Order

✔ Confidential designation
✔ Attorneys’ Eyes Only provisions
✔ Secure storage requirements
✔ Return/destruction after case

F. Preserve Litigation Position

✔ Keep all meet-and-confer emails
✔ Never refuse outright — always propose alternatives
✔ Keep record of opposing party’s unreasonable behavior

G. If Opposing Party Persists

✔ Prepare motion for protective order
✔ Prepare motion to quash (if subpoena)
✔ Seek sanctions for abusive discovery


CASE LAW CHEAT SHEET — OPPOSING MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

I. Relevance & Proportionality (FRCP 26(b)(1))

1. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978)

Discovery is limited to matters “relevant to the claim or defense” and not allowed for “fishing expeditions.”

2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)

Courts must prevent discovery based on speculative claims; discovery can be narrowed if requests are not tied to well-pleaded facts.

3. Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., 2021 WL 3047180 (N.D. Cal.)

Discovery must be proportional; even relevant data may be denied if production burden outweighs benefit.

4. Roberts v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 312 F.R.D. 594 (D. Nev. 2016)

Requests must be specifically relevant; broad “any and all documents” requests disfavored.

II. Undue Burden & Overbreadth

5. Hilt v. SFC Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182 (D. Kan. 1997)

Overly broad, sweeping requests are improper; responding party need not comply with “indiscriminate fishing.”

6. U.S. ex rel. McBride v. Halliburton Co., 272 F.R.D. 235 (D.D.C. 2011)

Requests requiring restoration of massive archived/backup data are unduly burdensome without strong relevance.

7. In re Bard IVC Filters Prods. Liab. Litig., 317 F.R.D. 562 (D. Ariz. 2016)

Courts must consider cost, difficulty, and disruption to business operations when evaluating burden.

III. Privilege & Work Product

8. Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981)

Attorney–client privilege protects internal corporate communications related to legal advice.

9. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947)

Work product doctrine protects attorney mental impressions; forced disclosure requires exceptional necessity.

10. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 357 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2004)

Privilege logs must be sufficiently detailed; vague logs may result in waiver, but courts prefer in camera review before compelling disclosure.

IV. Trade Secrets & Confidential Business Documents

11. Centurion Indus., Inc. v. Warren Steurer & Assocs., 665 F.2d 323 (10th Cir. 1981)

Party seeking disclosure of trade secrets must show substantial need; burden then shifts to requesting party.

12. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 107 F.R.D. 288 (D. Del. 1985)

Courts must protect highly proprietary information; even relevant trade secrets require strong protective orders.

13. Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech Int’l, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 552 (C.D. Cal. 2007)

Confidential business information is discoverable only under strict conditions; “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” is appropriate where disclosure risks competitive harm.

14. In re Adobe Sys. Privacy Litig., 2014 WL 5309934 (N.D. Cal.)

Sensitive corporate data requires protective orders; courts must balance disclosure against competitive injury.

V. Protective Orders & Confidentiality

15. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984)

Courts may issue protective orders restricting dissemination of sensitive information without violating First Amendment rights.

16. Phillips v. GM Corp., 307 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002)

Protective orders are proper where disclosure of confidential data would cause harm; courts defer to confidentiality designations when reasonable.

17. Glenmede Tr. Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476 (3d Cir. 1995)

Courts consider factors such as privacy interests, competitive harm, and public interest when issuing or enforcing protective orders.

VI. Sanctions, Bad Faith & Premature Motions

18. Marquis v. Chrysler Corp., 577 F.2d 624 (9th Cir. 1978)

Court may deny motion to compel if moving party failed to meet and confer in good faith.

19. Big Ridge, Inc. v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 715 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2013)

Courts can award fees when a motion to compel lacks substantial justification.

20. James v. Wash Depot Holdings, Inc., 240 F.R.D. 693 (S.D. Fla. 2006)

Failure to meet procedural requirements (e.g., meet-and-confer) is grounds for denying a motion to compel outright.

⭐ Quick-Use Parentheticals (Copy/Paste into your brief)

Here are ready-made, litigation-style summaries:

  • (discovery not permitted for broad, speculative “fishing expeditions”) – Oppenheimer Fund v. Sanders

  • (discovery must be proportional; burden outweighs benefit) – Gilead Sciences v. Merck

  • (requests requiring massive archive restoration are unduly burdensome) – McBride v. Halliburton

  • (work product includes attorney mental impressions; disclosure requires extraordinary need) – Hickman v. Taylor

  • (trade secrets discoverable only with strong showing of need; protective orders required) – Centurion Industries

  • (competitive harm justifies “attorneys’ eyes only” designations) – Nutratech v. Syntech

  • (protective orders limiting disclosure of sensitive information are appropriate) – Seattle Times v. Rhinehart

  • (motion to compel denied when movant fails to meet and confer) – Marquis v. Chrysler Corp.

​

Conclusion

Winning a motion to compel requires more than objections—it requires a defensible record, strong proportionality arguments, thoughtful confidentiality protections, and a persuasive narrative demonstrating why the requested discovery is improper or excessive.

When confidential business documents are involved, courts expect parties to strike a balance between legitimate discovery needs and the protection of proprietary information. By approaching discovery disputes strategically, comprehensively, and professionally, lawyers can effectively defend against motions to compel and safeguard their clients’ legal and commercial interests.