Legal Definitions - dilatory defense

A dilatory defense refers to a legal tactic or action taken by a party in a lawsuit that is primarily intended to delay the proceedings, postpone a judgment, or frustrate the opposing party, rather than to address the fundamental merits or facts of the case.

These actions often involve procedural objections, requests for extensions, or filing motions that do not directly challenge the core legal issues but instead aim to slow down the judicial process.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Repeated Requests for Extensions: Imagine a defendant in a civil lawsuit who is required to file a response to the plaintiff's complaint within a specific timeframe. Instead of filing a substantive response, the defendant's attorney repeatedly asks the court for extensions, citing vague reasons like "scheduling conflicts" or "need for more time to review documents," without providing specific, compelling justifications.

  This is a dilatory defense because each extension request pushes back deadlines and prolongs the litigation process, delaying the court from addressing the actual legal dispute, rather than presenting a genuine argument against the plaintiff's claims.

• Filing Numerous Procedural Motions: Consider a company being sued for breach of contract. Instead of directly responding to the allegations of breach, the company's legal team files a series of motions challenging minor procedural details, such as the exact wording of a subpoena, the formatting of an exhibit, or the jurisdiction over a peripheral, non-essential party. These motions require separate hearings and rulings before the case can move forward to the core contract dispute.

  These actions constitute a dilatory defense because they focus on technicalities and procedural hurdles to slow down the case and divert resources, rather than engaging with the substantive question of whether a contract was breached.

• Unjustified Discovery Disputes: In a complex business dispute, one party might repeatedly object to reasonable requests for documents or information during the discovery phase, forcing the other side to file motions to compel discovery. These objections might be based on overly broad claims of privilege or relevance, even when the information is clearly pertinent to the case.

  This behavior is dilatory because it creates unnecessary legal battles over information exchange, delaying the point at which both parties have the necessary facts to prepare for trial or settlement, thereby prolonging the overall litigation.