In Wesley Corp, Plaintiff sought, among other things, a Motion to Compel Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's discovery. Plaintiff argued that Defendants' use of boilerplate objections in the returned CASE:

Wesley Corp. v. Zoom T.V. Prods., LLC, No. 17-10021, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5068 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 11, 2018).

FACTS:

In Wesley Corp, Plaintiff sought, among other things, a Motion to Compel Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's discovery. Plaintiff argued that Defendants' use of boilerplate objections in the returned discovery requests were improper and constituted obstructionist behavior. Plaintiff asked the court to compel Defendants to provide proper responses to Plaintiff's previously submitted interrogatories and requests for production. The court denied Plaintiff's motions without prejudice and gave Defendants a second chance to adjust their responses. The court also warned both parties that additional intervention by the court in this discovery dispute would likely result in significant sanctions.

1) What are boilerplate objections? Why do courts, in general, have such a strong distaste for boilerplate objections? 2) What Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to boilerplate objections? Give at least 3 examples and explain how each rule applies. 3) A party finds itself sanctioned by the court for its use of boilerplate objections in discovery responses. Describe under what circumstances this might occur.