[author: William Hamilton]
Abstract
This essay uses a recent Delaware Chancery Court decision to examine the persistent use of boilerplate objections in discovery. It argues that the practice reflects a failure of reflective judgment and undermines the cooperative values embedded in the Federal Rules. Drawing on Hannah Arendt’s theory of judgment—and its exemplification in Socratic dialogue—it calls for a renewal of character-based legal education in the academy and at law firms.
The recent case of Wright v. SLWM, LLC, 2025 Del. Ch. LEXIS 151 *; 2025 LX 108762, serves as an excellent teaching opportunity for discovery and professional responsibility. The case addresses boilerplate objections to interrogatories and requests for production. Judge Laster of the Court of Chancery of Delaware does an excellent job of explaining and debunking the responding parties’ boilerplate objections. 2025 Del. Ch. LEXIS 151 *5
Building on Judge Laster’s analysis in Wright, here is a brief list of common boilerplate objections, along with reasons what is missing from each objection.
How should we teach law students (and junior lawyers) the inappropriateness of boilerplate objections? I suspect the most common method is simply to tell students, “Here is a list of boilerplate objections. Don’t do it. They are invalid. It won’t help your case, and you might face waiver or sanctions.” The students’ recall of this lesson can be easily tested and reinforced) through multiple-choice questions. The potential for sanctions also tends to stay with students. However, despite law schools teaching the impropriety of boilerplate objections for many years, the behavior persists. As Judge Laster notes, “Boilerplate objections “persist despite a litany of decisions from courts . . . that such objections are improper unless based on particularized facts.” (citations omitted). 2025 Del. Ch. LEXIS 151, *5. Maybe the “Don’t do it” plus “You’ll be Sanctioned” approach doesn’t fully prepare our students for the pressures they will encounter in practice.
Why do boilerplate objections occur? Boilerplate objections are raised for various inappropriate reasons, such as buying time, stonewalling discovery, and increasing the opposition’s costs. As Judge Laster phrased it:
Boilerplate objections are unfair to the requesting party, because they fail to inform the requesting party why its request is specifically objectionable. They also force parties to expend resources unnecessarily, because the requesting party must follow up with deficiency letters and meet-and-confer sessions to find out what, if anything, the boilerplate objections mean. And they waste judicial resources, because courts end up having to rule on the boilerplate objections themselves or attempt to assess the validity of responses laden with objections. 2025 Del. Ch. LEXIS 151, *6
The attorney making boilerplate objections is quite familiar with these results. The boilerplate attorney is simply following a playbook without critical thought. In other words, the attorney engaging in this destructive conduct has failed to stop and think. To this litigation attorney, the game is on, and the attorney is playing by the unwritten rules and acting in the client’s best interests.
I suspect that most junior attorneys drafting discovery objections rely on firm forms that have deployed boilerplate objections. A lack of experience may lead the attorney to fear that genuine objections are not sufficiently protective and that a targeted objection may inadvertently open a dangerous door. The attorney may also believe that “being tough” is how the game is played or that it will please the client and superiors. The attorney feels he is fulfilling his role by pushing objections to the limit. For this attorney, making boilerplate objections is just part of the job, and having a fallback position to a comprehensive boilerplate objection is comforting. There are thoughts, planning, and calculations involved, but no critical thinking.
Our educational goal at law schools and law firms should be to inculcate and strengthen “reflexive judgment” so that lawyers and law students develop their capacity to have an internal dialogue asking, “What am I doing?” Political theorist Hannah Arendt calls this the “two-in-one”—a form of internal dialogue she credits to Socrates, who taught that thinking begins when one questions oneself. Arendt, The Life of the Mind, Vol 1: Thinking, p. 185. It is ironic that since the late 18th century, much of legal education has utilized a “Socratic” case law teaching method, while much of legal practice tolerates—and even rewards—the evasion of genuine reflective thinking. Unfortunately, there is nothing especially fun about reflective thinking. Anyone can follow formal or unwritten rules and instructions. The reflective turn takes character and builds character. Learning to think and judge comes at a cost. The reflective two-in-one turn comes with hesitation, tension, anxiety, and uncertainty. The junior attorney and law student need to reflect: what does it mean for me to object to a request with an invalid, exaggerated objection? In the legal tradition to which I belong, what is my role as an attorney? What is my duty, notwithstanding any perceived tactical advantage? How will my actions be perceived – and responded to–by the others in the litigation? What are the underlying principles of litigation that make civil litigation work and optimize justice? What kind of lawyer do I want to be?
We should encourage and train law students and attorneys to engage in meaningful internal dialogue. Reflective thinking and judgment go beyond simple strategic calculation—it involves genuinely seeking mutual understanding, an agreed-upon right approach. Boilerplate objections, however, hinder dialogue. They prevent the search for common perspectives and block the process of reaching practical, mutual agreements. This is not just poor practice; it directly violates the cooperation required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, which calls for “the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Reflective thinking promotes transparency, fostering understanding and dialogue rather than confusion. Boilerplate objections fail to explain the ‘why’ because their purpose is not resolution or dialogue.
A genuine objection requires courage—it appears in the world, is exposed to others’ scrutiny, and is open to challenge. As Hannah Arendt wrote, “Judgment deals with particulars, and when judging one must put oneself into the situation and thus appear publicly, taking a stand and facing scrutiny by others.” In discovery practice, genuine objections do not end the conversation but enable it because they come with publicly stated reasons. Lawyers on both sides are entitled to debate the proper scope of discovery. But that exchange only works when objections are genuine—based on facts, rules, and reasons—not when they are formulas meant to stall or obscure. Boilerplate objections shut down that exchange. They avoid accountability, which in turn prevents persuasion and agreement.
Lawyers have an ethical duty not merely to win, but to foster the integrity of the legal process. Reflective judgment aligns lawyers’ behavior with broader professional ideals—justice, fairness, cooperation—ideals that extend beyond immediate tactical gain. Using Wright v. SLWM, LLC, to cultivate students’ and lawyers’ reflective and critical thinking about legal practice is an important lesson that is much broader than boilerplate. It helps build character.
[View source.]
