Sample Request For Production of Documents

Car Accident

• • Plaintiff’s Request in a car crash
  • Plaintiff’s Request in a truck crash to the owner
  • Plaintiff’s Request in a truck crash to the driver
  • Plaintiff’s Request (uninsured motorist)

Medical Malpractice

• • Plaintiff’s Request (medical malpractice)
  • Plaintiff’s Request (nursing home, with answers) [PDF]
  • Plaintiff’s Request (birth injury)

Other Tort Claims

• Plaintiff’s Request (sexual abuse)
• Plaintiff’s Request (legal malpractice)
• Plaintiff’s Request (product liability – includes incredibly obstructionist defendant’s answers)
• Plaintiff’s Request (dog bite)

Example Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents

• Nursing home
• Car accident/brain injury
• Malpractice
• Truck crash (with answers/objections)
• Dog bite (with answers/objections)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 is the go-to tool for obtaining documents and electronically stored information (ESI) during discovery in federal court. Most states have a rule very similar if not identical to Rule 34. It is not flashy, but it is foundational. This is how you get the emails, contracts, text messages, spreadsheets, and metadata that make or break a case.

This rule lets a party request the production of documents, tangible items, or entry onto land for inspection. But in the modern era, it is mostly about ESI. Email servers, Slack messages, internal databases, cloud backups, and all the messy data that lives in places litigants often pretend they did not know existed.

Reasonable Particularity and Production Requirements

According to Rule 34(b), a requesting party must:

• Describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be produced. This means that vague, overly broad, or generic requests are disfavored. Instead, the request must clearly identify what is being sought so the responding party can fairly respond without undue burden or guesswork.

• Specify a reasonable time, place, and manner for the production. This is particularly important when ESI is involved, as the format and method of production (e.g., PDF, native format, metadata included) can significantly affect both the utility and cost of the produced materials.

Cost and Objections

Generally, the responding party bears the cost of production. However, courts have discretion to shift costs or limit the scope of production if it is determined that compliance would impose an undue burden or expense, particularly in cases involving massive volumes of data or inaccessible sources. Judges will often weigh the proportionality of the request, balancing the relevance and importance of the requested materials against the burden of producing them.

If a party objects to a Rule 34 request, the objection must be stated with specificity. Blanket or boilerplate objections—such as simply stating that a request is “overly broad” or “unduly burdensome” without further explanation—are insufficient. Similarly, a party cannot outright refuse to produce responsive documents without justification.

The rules require parties to engage in good faith efforts to meet their discovery obligations. Courts have little patience for gamesmanship or evasive conduct. And crucially, objections must be raised during the discovery process, not at trial. Failing to assert discovery rights or make proper objections in a timely manner can result in waiver, meaning the party loses the opportunity to challenge the request later on.

Maryland Rule 2-422 governs requests for the production of documents in civil litigation and is a critical tool for personal injury attorneys seeking to build a strong evidentiary foundation. This rule allows a party to require the opposing party—most often the defendant in personal injury litigation—to produce documents, tangible things, or electronically stored information (ESI) within their possession, custody, or control that are relevant to the claims or defenses at issue. In car accident and truck accident cases, this often includes insurance documents, repair records, vehicle maintenance logs, photographs, dash cam footage, employment files (in commercial vehicle claims), and any other materials that may shed light on liability or damages.

Subsection (b) of Rule 2-422 specifically requires that each request “set forth the items to be inspected either by individual item or by category, and shall describe each item and category with reasonable particularity.” This mirrors the language and intent of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, which means Maryland practitioners can rely on federal case law interpreting Rule 34 when litigating the scope or sufficiency of a Rule 2-422 request. The emphasis on “reasonable particularity” helps to prevent fishing expeditions while also requiring defendants to engage with the requests in good faith.

A common misconception among attorneys is that Maryland imposes a numerical limit on how many document requests may be served, often believed to be 30, as is the case in some jurisdictions.  We have had defense lawyers make objections saying exactly this. But it is incorrect.

Maryland imposes no formal limit on the number of document requests a party may issue. In practice, personal injury lawyers in Maryland often receive and serve more than 100 requests for production of documents, particularly in serious injury cases where multiple theories of liability, defenses, and damages must be thoroughly explored. The absence of a numerical cap provides flexibility to request documents across a wide range of topics, as long as they are relevant and proportionate to the needs of the case.

Attorneys should use this rule aggressively and strategically. Well-drafted document requests are often the gateway to identifying additional evidence, strengthening your client’s claims, and compelling a settlement. As illustrated in our sample request for production of documents provided above, detailed and comprehensive discovery is not only permitted under Rule 2-422, it is essential.

The defendant has 30 days in Maryland (33 days if served by mail) after service of the request, unless the request is served before the date the defendant’s initial pleading or motion is required. In that case, the responding party has until 15 days after the time for responding to the initial pleading. Because our lawyers file the bulk of our RFPD with the Complaint, the latter rule is usually applicable.

The defendant must provide a response stating whether he/she/it will comply with the request. Specific grounds or reasons must be given with some specificity explaining why the request for documents is overly broad or the reasons why having to produce the documents would be unduly burdensome.

Defense lawyers, particularly in serious injury cases, typically object to document requests initially because it takes real effort from the defendant’s attorney to comply with the request. Competent counsel stays on the defendants to ensure compliance with their discovery obligations.

• Discovery samples, including depositions, interrogatories, requests for production of documents, etc.)
• Trial documents (transcripts, jury instructions, you name it)

Electronic Discovery

In 2025, more than 99% of information will be created and housed electronically. Personal injury attorneys have to do a good job from the beginning of the case to figure out what electronic discovery is. They need to know and how the defendant is going to produce it.

The key is to ask the right questions to elicit information on how the records are stored and how to access them. You also need to be cautious about accepting things at face value.

Most defense lawyers reflexively tell you that producing the electronic information you need is just too difficult to pull up. Too many plaintiffs’ lawyers, and ultimately, judges, accept these excuses because they don’t fully appreciate the technology to see through the nonsense.

• Court ruling on cell phone records production
• Motion to compel production of records from Microsoft

Getting Help (or Co-Counsel) for Your Case

If you need assistance with your personal injury case, call 800-553-8082 or schedule a free, no-obligation online consultation. This offer is both for potential clients and referring lawyers throughout the United States. Our firm handles only serious personal injury accidents, malpractice, and product liability cases. But we are nice people! So we will offer direction on any tort case.