this is always the question with lawyers.
Supreme Court of California tells lawyers to limit their evidentiary objections in summary judgment practice
If an evidentiary objection has merit, but isn't critical to the motion at hand, should an ethical lawyer decline to raise the objection, out of a duty to the court, the opponent, and the system?
In the course of rendering its much-awaited decision in the Google age discrimination case (Reid v. Google), the Supreme Court of California wrestled with the fact that the trial court hadn't ruled on evidentiary objections. Trial courts are quite busy and in the course of summary judgment motions are flooded with countless objections to evidence. So the trial courts often finesse the objections. The Supreme Court declared that courts will be ruling on those objections, so the court also warned lawyers (emphasis added):
We recognize that it has become common practice for litigants to flood the trial courts with inconsequential written evidentiary objections, without focusing on those that are critical. Trial courts are often faced with “innumerable objections commonly thrown up by the parties as part of the all-out artillery exchange that summary judgment has become.” (Mamou v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 686, 711-712.) Indeed, the Biljac procedure itself was designed to ease the extreme burden on trial courts when all “too often” “litigants file blunderbuss objections to virtually every item of evidence submitted.” [cites omitted] To counter that disturbing trend, we encourage parties to raise only meritorious objections to items of evidence that are legitimately in dispute and pertinent to the disposition of the summary judgment motion. In other words, litigants should focus on the objections that really count. Otherwise, they may face informal reprimands or formal sanctions for engaging in abusive practices. At the very least, at the summary judgment hearing, the parties — with the trial court’s encouragement — should specify the evidentiary objections they consider important, so that the court can focus its rulings on evidentiary matters that are critical in resolving the summary judgment motion.
