About the Course
Introduction
This CLE webinar will guide construction litigators in drafting discovery requests likely to withstand heightened judicial scrutiny under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) (and state rule equivalents) that require discovery be proportional to the needs of the case. The panel will also discuss strategies for making sustainable objections to discovery requests that are overly broad and burdensome in light of the needs of the case. Additionally, the panel will review strategies for producing documents and electronically stored information promptly as required by Rule 34(b) (and state rule equivalents).
Description
Construction litigation is complex, often involving multiple parties with intricate contractual relationships and significant financial stakes in a project. Given the potentially expansive scope of litigation, it may be challenging for construction litigators to draft discovery requests—requests for production of documents and admissions, interrogatories, and third-party subpoenas (discovery requests)—that are proportional to the needs of the case and likely to withstand the heightened judicial scrutiny under Rule 26(b) or possible state rule equivalents.
Federal Rule 26(b) requires that litigators raise proportionality arguments to support their discovery requests and to object to opposing counsel's discovery requests. Courts have emphasized that parties must rein in overly broad discovery requests. Many states also require that discovery be proportional to the needs of the case to more closely align with the federal rule.
Litigators must justify any request for discovery beyond the direct circumstances that led to the claim and damages sought. Discovery requests may be narrowed or quashed if the burden or expense of producing the information outweighs its likely benefit.
Knowing how to draft discovery requests that are likely to withstand burden and proportionality challenges and how to craft objections to broad discovery requests are critical for construction litigators. This includes understanding how to object to Rule 34 requests with specificity and how to respond to early requests for production within a "reasonable time."
Listen as our expert panel discusses how to draft discovery requests and make objections in line with the requirements of Rules 26(b) and 34 (b) (and state rule equivalents). The panel will examine supporting case law and offer best practices for drafting and responding to discovery requests.
Presented By
.jpg)
Mr. Mroczkowski represents businesses up and down the construction contract chain—from owners and developers and lenders and sureties to contractors and subcontractors to architects and engineers—helping them deal fairly with other parties and protecting their rights when those other parties fail to meet their obligations. He is the consummate outside construction counsel, drafting, reviewing, and negotiating contracts for clients ranging from large corporations to small closely held companies, but primarily litigating disputes in state and federal courts and mediation and arbitration proceedings throughout the country. Mr. Mroczkowski regularly advises clients on issues involving breach of contract, lien and bond claims, defects, defaults, complex commercial foreclosures, lease disputes, liquidations, bankruptcy preference, and fraudulent transfers.
Ms. Sigmond is a partner in the Construction and Litigation practice groups at Greenspoon Marder, with over 40 years of legal experience. She specializes in construction and real estate matters, including arbitration, appeals, bid protests, contract preparation, mediation, litigation, receivership, and suretyship. Ms. Sigmond represents clients in construction defect litigation and helps expedite construction projects by ensuring proper contracts are in place. She has a strong background in litigating construction disputes for both public and private sector projects. Ms. Sigmond is well-versed in preparing various contract documents, such as design-build, construction management, guaranteed maximum price, and fixed-price contracts. Additionally, she serves as a mediator and arbitrator for construction and real estate cases with the New York County Supreme Court and the American Arbitration Association. Ms. Sigmond's experience extends to advising on receiverships, having worked with creditors and debtors in various receivership cases. She has played an active role in the New York construction law community, serving as Vice President of the New York State Bar Association and President of the New York County Lawyers Association. Ms. Sigmond is a frequent speaker and author on construction law topics and publishes “The Co-Op Condo Help Line” in the Mann Report.
-
This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.
-
Date + Time
- event
Tuesday, March 3, 2026
- schedule
1:00 p.m. ET/10:00 a.m. PT
I. Introduction
A. Complex nature of construction projects and challenges of drafting discovery requests proportional to the needs of the case
II. Overview of FRCP 26(b) and 34(b)
A. State rule equivalents
B. Proportionality factors
C. Reasonable time to respond
III. Considerations for drafting discovery requests
IV. Strategies for responding/objecting to discovery requests
V. Practitioner takeaways
The panel will review these and other important issues:
- How does the complex nature of construction projects make drafting discovery requests that are in line with the proportionality standard more challenging?
- When responding to early requests for production, how specific must construction litigators be in their objections? What constitutes a "reasonable time" for producing information?
- What guidance does case law provide on determining the circumstances in which the burden or expense of obtaining discovery outweighs the likely benefit?
