Robertson v. Navient Solutions, LLC

Filing 30

ORDER granting 24 Motion to Compel Production on or before March 2, 2018, in accord with the attached order. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 2/15/2018. (CCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MICHELLE ROBERTSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 8:17-cv-1077-T-26MAP

NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
UPON DUE AND CAREFUL CONSIDERATION of the procedural history of
this case, together with a review of the parties’ written submissions, it is ORDERED
AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. 24) is granted. Defendant
shall produce the documents described in Requests for Production 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40
on or before March 2, 2018. In the Court’s view, Defendant’s counsel, in responding to
the requests, merely recited boilerplate objections which have been repeatedly condemned
by courts in the Middle District of Florida. See, e.g., Archer v. City of Winter Haven,
2017 WL 5158142, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2017). In particular, Defendant’s counsel
lodged objections which did not “state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the
request, including the reasons.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B) (emphasis added). Nor did
Defendant’s counsel in lodging objections based on the attorney-client privilege or the
attorney work product doctrine comply with the requirement of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(b)(5)(A)(ii).

The Court makes one final observation. After reviewing the parties’ submissions
and the attached e-mails, the Court can only come to one conclusion - both counsel for the
parties are engaging in litigation tactics which result in the needless expenditure of client
and judicial resources. As one of this Court’s colleagues previously observed, “[s]uch
deceptive tactics are prejudicial to the opposing party and undermine the purpose of the
discovery rules, which is to facilitate resolution of cases on their merits with what is
supposed to be an efficient self-executing or self-policed exchange of relevant
information.” Steele v. U. S. Dep’t of Veteran Affairs, 2011 WL 2160343, at *7 (M.D.
Fla. Jun. 1, 2011) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted).
ACCORDINGLY, counsel for the parties are reminded of the requirement of
Local Rule 2.04(h) that “[a]ttorneys and litigants should conduct themselves with civility
and in a spirit of cooperation in order to reduce unnecessary cost and delay.” Any
counsel or litigant failing to comply with the dictates of the rule will be sanctioned. To
that end, counsel are directed to resolve the issue referenced in footnote one of the motion
without Court intervention.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on February 15, 2018.

s/Richard A. Lazzara
RICHARD A. LAZZARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO:

Counsel of Record

-2-