Under your jurisdiction’s version of Model Rule 3.4(d), you have an ethics duty to make reasonably diligent efforts to comply with legally proper discovery requests. Interpreting a wrinkle in Ohio’s version of the rule, the state supreme court held earlier this month that a violation requires “intentionally or habitually” flouting the requirement — and in an odd twist, the court held that a claimed Vitamin D deficiency did not excuse a Dayton lawyer’s failure to obey.
Continue Reading Lack of vitamin-D didn’t mitigate intentional, habitual non-compliance with discovery requests