Also known as:particularly describe · particularly described · particular description · particularity
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A requirement that legal authorizations and pleadings identify the place, persons, things, or matters involved with sufficient specificity to prevent ambiguity or overbreadth. The description must enable the executing party to ascertain the precise scope without resort to external documents or guesswork. Failure to meet the standard renders the authorization or pleading defective.
Sources & Authorities· 23 primary sources
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Statutes
Federal Rules
Uniform Acts
Model Codes
Restatements
Hornbooks
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Warrant for Hemp Farm Shed
State officers obtained a warrant to search Randy's locked shed for feed invoices. The warrant described only the entire barnyard rather than the specific shed. Officers used bolt cutters to enter. The court suppressed the evidence because the warrant failed to identify the place with the required detail.
Corporate Deposition Notice
Pulse Media served a Rule 30(b)(6) notice on Prism Analytics. The notice listed only broad topics such as all company policies. Prism designated no witnesses because the topics lacked sufficient detail. The court ordered Pulse to revise the notice with narrower descriptions before any deposition could proceed.
Derivative Suit Allegations
Patricia Patel filed a derivative action against Paragon Construction directors. Her complaint stated only that the board lacked independence. The corporation moved to dismiss based on a committee determination. The court granted dismissal because Patel failed to plead specific facts showing the determination process was flawed.
Warrant for Stolen Items
Officers obtained a warrant to search Paula Pierce's storage unit. The warrant listed only generic categories instead of specific stolen electronics. Even though the affidavit contained detailed serial numbers, officers seized unrelated goods. The court invalidated the seizure because the warrant itself did not describe the items with particularity.
Document Production Request
Patrick Phan served a Rule 34 request on Patriot Insurance for all policy files. The request failed to identify specific claim numbers or date ranges. Patriot objected that the categories were too vague. The court sustained the objection and required Patrick to narrow the request before any production.
Burden Shift in Derivative Case
Piper Patel alleged that a majority of Paragon's directors had conflicts with the challenged transaction. Her complaint listed the specific business ties and board votes. Because the allegations were particularized, the court shifted the burden to the corporation to prove the special committee acted properly.
Common questions
Frequently Asked
5
What level of detail satisfies the particularity requirement in a search warrant?+
The description must enable officers to identify the exact place or items with reasonable effort. A street address suffices for urban premises when it distinguishes the target from surrounding property. Vague references to an entire building when only one suite is intended render the warrant invalid.
Supporting sources
Does a supporting affidavit cure a facially deficient warrant description?+
No. Officers may not rely on an affidavit to supply missing particularity when the warrant itself fails to list the items or place. The warrant must stand on its own face under the Fourth Amendment.
How does the particularity requirement apply to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice?+
The notice must describe the matters for examination with reasonable particularity so the organization can designate knowledgeable witnesses. Broad topics such as all company policies fail this test and require revision before the deposition proceeds.
Supporting sources
What must a plaintiff allege to overcome a board determination in a derivative suit?+
The complaint must state with particularity facts showing that the requirements for dismissal were not met. General assertions of bias or inadequate inquiry are insufficient to shift the burden or defeat the motion.
Supporting sources
Does the particularity rule in Rule 34 require item-by-item listing?+
No. Reasonable particularity may be satisfied by describing categories when the categories themselves are defined with enough precision to allow the responding party to locate responsive documents. Vague requests for all files fail the standard.
Supporting sources
particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” In Bell v. Hood , 327 U. S. 678 (1946), we reserved the question whether violation of that command by a federal agent…
Business Associations Corporations and LlcsShareholder and member litigation: direct, derivative, and class litigation · Shareholder and member litigation: direct, derivative, and class litigationUBEIntermediate