Motor-Services Hugo Stamp, Inc. v. Outerlimits Offshore Powerboats Ltd. et al
Filing
36
GENERAL ORDER ON DISCOVERY OBJECTIONS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton on 6/24/2011. (AMS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 10-62311–CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON
MOTOR-SERVICES HUGO STAMP, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v.
OUTERLIMITS OFFSHORE POWERBOATS, et al.,
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.
/
GENERAL ORDER ON DISCOVERY OBJECTIONS
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. This matter has been referred to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge for discovery matters (DE # 20). In order to efficiently
resolve discovery disputes, the parties are hereby notified that the following rules apply to
discovery objections before this Court. If discovery responses contrary to this Order have
been made prior to the entry of this Order, those responses must be corrected prior to any
hearing or response made to a motion to compel.
1. Vague, Overly Broad, and Unduly Burdensome
The parties shall not make nonspecific, boilerplate objections. Such objections do
not comply with Local Rule 26.1(g)(3)(A), which provides, "Where an objection is made to
any interrogatory or sub-part thereof or to any document request under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 34, the objection shall state with specificity all grounds." Objections that state
that a discovery request is "vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome" are, standing
alone, meaningless, and will be found meritless by this Court. A party objecting on these
grounds must explain the specific and particular way in which a request is vague, overly
broad, or unduly burdensome. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); Josephs v. Harris Corp., 677
F.2d 985, 992 (3d Cir. 1982) ("[T]he mere statement by a party that the interrogatory was
‘overly broad, burdensome, oppressive and irrelevant' is not adequate to voice a successful
objection to an interrogatory. On the contrary, the party resisting discovery ‘must show
specifically how . . . each interrogatory is not relevant or how each question is overly broad,
burdensome or oppressive.'" [citation omitted]). If a party believes that the request is
vague, that party shall attempt to obtain clarification prior to objecting on this ground.
2. Objections Based Upon Scope
If there is an objection based upon an unduly broad scope, such as time frame or
geographic location, discovery should be provided as to those matters within the scope
which is not disputed. For example, if discovery is sought nationwide for a ten-year period,
and the responding party objects on the grounds that only a five-year period limited to
activities in the State of Florida is appropriate, the responding party shall provide
responsive discovery falling within the five-year period as to the State of Florida.
3. Irrelevant and Not Reasonably Calculated to Lead to Admissible
Evidence
An objection that a discovery request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to
lead to admissible evidence must include a specific explanation describing why the request
lacks relevance and why the information sought will not reasonably lead to admissible
evidence. The parties are reminded that the Federal Rules allow for broad discovery that
does not need to be admissible at trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Oppenheimer Fund,
Inc., v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351-52 (1978); see also Local Rule 26.1(g)(3)(A).
4. Formulaic Objections Followed by an Answer
The parties shall not recite a formulaic objection followed by an answer to the
request. It has become common practice for a Party to object on the basis of any of the
2
above reasons, and then state that "notwithstanding the above," the Party will respond to
the discovery request, subject to or without waiving such objection. Such an objection and
answer preserves nothing and serves only to waste the time and resources of both the
Parties and the Court. Further, such practice leaves the requesting Party uncertain as to
whether the question has actually been fully answered or whether only a portion of the
question has been answered. See Civil Discovery Standards, 2004 A.B.A. Sec. Lit. 18; see
also Local Rule 26.1(g)(3)(A).
5. Objections Based upon Privilege
Generalized objections asserting attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine
also do not comply with the local rules. Local Rule 26.1(g)(3)(B) requires that objections
based upon privilege identify the specific nature of the privilege being asserted, as well as,
inter alia, the nature and subject matter of the communication at issue and the sender and
receiver of the communication and their relationship to each other. The parties are
instructed to review Local Rule 26.1(g)(3)(B) carefully and to refrain from objections such
as: "Objection. This information is protected by attorney/client and/or work product
privilege." If a general objection of privilege is made without attaching a proper privilege
log, the objection of privilege may be deemed waived.
DONE AND ORDERED in chambers in Miami, Florida, on January 24, 2011.
ANDREA M. SIMONTON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished via CM/ECF to:
All counsel of record
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?