FRCP 26(g) Signing Disclosures and Discovery Requests, Responses, and Objections

A favorite e-discovery enforcement tool of the federal bench is Rule 26(g). Judges use Rule 26(g) as a stick to deal with e-discovery abuses. In Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Services Co. (2008), Magistrate Judge Grimm explained:
“The rule aspires to eliminate one of the most prevalent of all discovery abuses: kneejerk discovery requests served without consideration of cost or burden to the responding party as well as ending the equally abusive practice of objecting to discovery requests reflexively — but not reflectively — and without a factual basis.”
Rule 26(g) is not subtle. It demands that an attorney sign every e-discovery request, response, or objection. The signing attorney is certifying that, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry, the request, response, or objection is genuine and not an attempt to undermine the system.
Rule 26(g) imposes mandatory sanctions on lawyers for violations that are not substantially justified. The sanction may include an order to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the violation. The signature of the attorney also serves as yours.