Republic of Panama v. Omega Engineering LLC et al
Filing
72
ORDER Following Discovery Hearing: granting in part and denying in part 69 Motion to Compel Better Answers to First Set of Written Discovery Requests. Signed by Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein on 10/22/2024. See attached document for full details. (ls)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 24-CV-21097-MOORE/ELFENBEIN
REPUBLIC OF PANAMA,
Plaintiff,
v.
OMEGA ENGINEERING LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
/
OMEGA ENGINEERING LLC, et al.,
Counter-Plaintiffs,
v.
REPUBLIC OF PANAMA,
Counter-Defendant.
/
ORDER FOLLOWING DISCOVERY HEARING
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Omega Engineering
LLC and Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Oscar Rivera’s Amended Notice of Hearing (the “Notice”),
in which Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs (collectively, “Omega”) alerted the Court that the Parties
required the Court’s assistance with twelve discovery disputes. 1 See ECF No. [59]. In the Notice,
Omega asked to be heard on “the following discovery disputes”:
Discovery Dispute No. 1: The parties dispute the appropriateness of Petitioner
Republic of Panama’s refusal to produce documents responsive to Respondents’
Although there are thirteen numbered disputes in the Notice, Discovery Dispute No. 12 is an exact
duplicate of Discovery Dispute No. 11, see ECF No. [57] at 3–4, so the Court does not need to discuss it or
rule on it. To avoid confusion, however, the Court preserves Omega’s numbering by simply omitting
Discovery Dispute No. 12.
1
CASE NO. 24-CV-21097-MOORE/Elfenbein
First Requests for Production, citing its pending Motion to Stay Discovery based
on its Motion for Judgment of Petition to Recognize and Enforce ICSID Award and
Motion to Dismiss Respondents’ Counterclaims (ECF No. 47). Specifically,
Panama has objected to producing any documents in response to all Requests for
Production Nos. 1 through 13.
Discovery Dispute No. 2: The parties dispute whether the terms “execution” and
“alleged breach” of the settlement agreement in Request for Production No. 1 are
vague and assume facts not in evidence, and whether the request is overly broad,
burdensome, and proportional to the case needs.
Discovery Dispute No. 3: The parties dispute whether Request for Production No.
2 is overly broad, burdensome, and proportional to the case needs, and whether the
documents requested are duplicative or already in Respondents' possession.
Discovery Dispute No. 4: The parties dispute whether the terms “true up” and
“liquidation process” in Request for Production No. 3 are vague and speculative,
and whether the request is overly broad, burdensome, and proportional to the case
needs, and relevant to the parties’ claims or defenses.
Discovery Dispute No. 5: The parties dispute whether Request for Production No.
4, which seeks documents related to any payments or amounts claimed by
Respondents under the Construction Contracts subject to the true-up or liquidation
process, is vague in its use of the terms “true up” and “liquidation,” and whether it
is duplicative, overly broad, burdensome, and relevant to the parties’ claims or
defenses.
Discovery Dispute No. 6: The parties dispute whether Request for Production No.
5, which seeks documents related to enforcement actions taken by Petitioner in
Panama or any other jurisdiction in relation to the ICSID Final Award, is overly
broad, unduly burdensome, and proportional to the needs of the case, and whether
the requested information is relevant to Respondents’ claims or defenses.
Discovery Dispute No. 7: The parties dispute whether Request for Production No.
7, which seeks documents related to any settlement discussions or negotiations
between Petitioner and Respondents regarding the ICSID Final Award, is
duplicative, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and proportional to the needs of the
case.
Discovery Dispute No. 8: The parties dispute whether Request for Production No.
10, which seeks documents related to the termination of the Construction Contracts,
is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and relevant to the issues in dispute.
Discovery Dispute No. 9: The parties dispute whether Request for Production No.
11, which seeks documents related to the calculation and determination of amounts
owed under the true-up or liquidation process for the Construction Contracts, is
2
CASE NO. 24-CV-21097-MOORE/Elfenbein
vague in its use of the terms “true up” and “liquidation,” and whether it is
duplicative, overly broad, burdensome, and relevant to the parties’ claims or
defenses.
Discovery Dispute No. 10: The parties dispute whether Request for Production
No. 12, which seeks documents related to any audits, reviews, or inspections of the
Construction Contracts conducted by or on behalf of Petitioner, is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and relevant to the issues in dispute.
Discovery Dispute No. 11: The parties dispute whether Request for Production
No. 13, which seeks documents related to any investigations, audits, or reviews
conducted by Petitioner into the performance of the Construction Contracts by
Respondents, is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and relevant to the issues in
dispute, and whether it implicates merits issues in the underlying ICSID arbitration.
*
*
*
Discovery Dispute No. 13: The parties dispute whether Petitioner Republic of
Panama’s incorporation of “Additional Objections” into each response, complies
with the Court’s discovery rules and leaves Respondents uncertain as to whether
their requests have been fully answered.
See ECF No. [59] at 2–4. The Court held a hearing on the issues in the Notice on October 8, 2024
(the “Hearing”). See ECF No. [57]; ECF No. [62].
At the Hearing, Omega added ore tenus one more discovery dispute related to Request for
Production No. 6, with no objection from Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Republic of Panama
(“Panama”). 2 See ECF No. [62]. Omega also made an oral motion to compel better answers to its
first set of written discovery requests (the “Oral Motion”). See ECF No. [62]; ECF No. [69]. The
Court ruled on all the issues raised in Omega’s Notice, see ECF No. [59]; on the additional ore
tenus discovery dispute; and on Omega’s Oral Motion, see ECF No. [62]; ECF No. [69]. To
memorialize those rulings and to provide further clarification, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED
as follows:
Omega requested permission to ore tenus add two other discovery disputes to the matters to be decided at
the Hearing. Those disputes were related to Requests for Production Nos. 8 and 9, which Omega
inadvertently omitted from its Notice. Because the Parties were already well over the time they had reserved
for the Hearing when those requests were made, however, the Court declined to allow the further additions.
2
3
CASE NO. 24-CV-21097-MOORE/Elfenbein
Discovery Dispute No. 1: According to the Notice, “Panama has objected to producing any
documents in response to all Requests for Production Nos. 1 through 13” because it has a Motion
to Stay Discovery 3 pending before Judge Moore. See ECF No. [59] at 2. It is well settled in this
District that, if a Motion to Stay Discovery is filed, parties must continue to comply with their
discovery obligations unless and until that Motion to Stay is granted. See, e.g., Monks v. Diamond
Resorts Int’l, Inc., No. 17-14307-CIV, 2018 WL 4208330, at *2–3 (S.D. Fla. May 11, 2018)
(noting that a party cannot “engage[] in unilateral ‘self-help’ by filing [a] motion for a protective
order and then refusing to respond to any discovery while [the] motion is pending and the clock
runs out” because discovery “may not be stayed absent an order from the District Court”). Parties
may not ignore discovery requests while a Motion to Stay Discovery is pending. See, e.g., Mad
Room, LLC v. City of Miami, No. 21-23485-CV, 2021 WL 10395434, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 14,
2021) (“[Plaintiffs’] Motion to Stay Discovery did not toll the discovery deadlines. Defendant was
required to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests in a timely fashion.”); Romacorp, Inc. v.
Prescient, Inc., No. 10-22872-CIV, 2011 WL 2312563, at *2 (S.D. Fla. June 8, 2011) (explaining
that a party may not “stop complying with its discovery obligations when it files a motion to stay”
or “simply ignore its discovery obligations while a motion to stay is pending”). Accordingly,
Panama’s objections to Omega’s Requests for Production based on the pending Motion to Stay are
OVERRULED. Panama must continue to comply with its discovery obligations, including by
producing all non-privileged, non-objected to documents, unless and until Judge Moore grants a
Motion to Stay Discovery. Panama must produce all non-privileged, non-objected to documents
no later than October 28, 2024. Any documents withheld based on privilege must be disclosed
on a privilege log within the same timeframe.
Judge Moore denied as moot Panama’s original Motion to Stay Discovery, see ECF No. [65], but Panama
has since filed a renewed Motion to Stay Discovery, see ECF No. [68].
3
4
CASE NO. 24-CV-21097-MOORE/Elfenbein
Discovery Dispute No. 2: According to the Notice, the Parties “dispute whether the terms
‘execution’ and ‘alleged breach’ of the settlement agreement in Request for Production No. 1 are
vague and assume facts not in evidence.” See ECF No. [59] at 2. At the Hearing, the Parties
clarified that the disagreement derives from their differing views of whether the settlement
agreement was ever executed. Upon questioning, Panama represented to the Court that it has
documents related to the negotiation of the purported settlement agreement, and Omega offered a
clarification about the documents it was seeking. Specifically, Omega explained that it was
looking for any documents that bear signatures, initials, or other marks by government officials
that convey an intention to accept the negotiated agreement. Based on the Parties’ representations,
Panama’s objections to Request for Production No. 1 are OVERRULED. Panama must produce
all non-privileged documents related to the negotiation, execution (as Omega defined that term at
the Hearing), and alleged breach of the purported settlement agreement no later than October 28,
2024. Any documents withheld based on privilege must be disclosed on a privilege log within the
same timeframe.
Discovery Dispute No. 3: According to the Notice, the Parties “dispute whether Request
for Production No. 2 is overly broad, burdensome, and proportional to the case needs, and whether
the documents requested are duplicative or already in” Omega’s possession. See ECF No. [59] at
2. At the Hearing, Panama argued both that Request for Production No. 2 is duplicative of Request
for Production No. 1 and that Omega already has the documents that would be responsive to it.
Omega explained that it has many of the requested documents but not all of them, and it suggested
the Parties could communicate to work out what Omega still needs. Although the Parties
confirmed, upon questioning by the Court, that they had conferred about Panama’s objection to
Request for Production No. 2, it appears their conferral was not specific enough. Based on the
5
CASE NO. 24-CV-21097-MOORE/Elfenbein
Parties’ representations, the Court DIRECTS the Parties to meet again and have a meaningful
conferral about which documents responsive to Request for Production No. 2 Omega still needs.
If, after that conferral, the Parties still have a dispute regarding Request for Production No. 2, they
may follow the Court’s Order Setting Discovery Procedures to request the Court’s assistance. See
ECF No. [10] at 1–4.
Discovery Dispute No. 4: According to the Notice, the Parties “dispute whether the terms
‘true up’ and ‘liquidation process’ in Request for Production No. 3 are vague and speculative, and
whether the request is overly broad, burdensome, and proportional to the case needs, and relevant.”
See ECF No. [59] at 2. At the Hearing, Omega clarified that Request for Production No. 3 relates
to its Sixth Affirmative Defense, which asserts that Omega is entitled to a “set off” of any amount
Panama owes Omega for work on the three commercial construction contracts between the
Parties. 4 See ECF No. [61] at 9–10. Omega also noted that, while the quoted phrases are its own,
Panama’s own laws require it to decide how much of the construction contracts were completed
so that it knows how much money it owes Omega for that work. Because Panama has that
responsibility, Omega argued that Request for Production No. 3 has nothing to do with the merits
of the arbitration award and everything to do with Panama’s independent obligation to ascertain
and pay what it owes Omega. Panama, on the other hand, argued that a set-off defense may be
asserted only if the set-off amount is already fixed, settled, and undisputed. Upon questioning by
the Court, the Parties held differing views about whether the Court could decide this issue as part
of a discovery dispute or whether it is more appropriately directed to Judge Moore as part of the
At the Hearing, the Parties agreed that Discovery Dispute Nos. 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11 — which relate to
Request for Production Nos. 4, 10, 11, 12, and 13, respectively — are also connected to Omega’s Sixth
Affirmative Defense asserting set off, so the same analysis applies to those Disputes. As a result, though
the Court preserves Omega’s Notice numbering to avoid confusion, the Court refers back to this discussion
to address these Disputes.
4
6
CASE NO. 24-CV-21097-MOORE/Elfenbein
merits of the litigation (specifically, the merits of the arbitration award itself). For that reason, the
undersigned took this Discovery Dispute (and the related Discovery Disputes) under advisement
and ordered the Parties to submit supplemental authority addressing whether the undersigned has
the power to decide this issue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.
The Parties’ supplemental authority, and the Court’s own research, reveal several
principles applicable to actions enforcing an arbitral award rendered by the International Centre
for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”). As an initial matter, “enforcing courts may
not reexamine the merits of an ICSID award itself.” Perenco Ecuador Ltd. v. Republic of Ecuador,
No. 1:19-CV-2943 (JMC), 2023 WL 2536368, at *5 (D.D.C. Mar. 16, 2023). But just because
parties may not bring “substantive attacks” on an ICSID award does not mean they cannot “make
non-merits challenges to the award.” See Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela, 863 F.3d 96, 121 (2d Cir. 2017). As the Second Circuit has recognized, “the possibility
that an offset might apply to the award that would make execution in the full amount improper” is
a non-merits challenge. Id.
While parties can bring setoff defenses in ICSID enforcement actions, enforcing courts
must not “entertain[] setoffs where there [are] genuine questions as to the validity, finality, or
amount of the underlying debt” that would be used as the setoff. See Perenco, 2023 WL 2536368,
at *6. For that reason, “a setoff may not be brought in an ICSID enforcement proceeding if the
parties dispute the finality, validity, or amount of the underlying debt.” Id. On the other hand,
“undisputed setoffs, or setoffs involving frivolous objections,” might be appropriate in an ICSID
enforcement proceeding. Id.; see also id. (noting that “an undisputed setoff — where both parties
agree to the setoff’s terms — would not risk offending the ICSID Tribunal’s decision” because “it
would be a simple accounting mechanism”).
7
CASE NO. 24-CV-21097-MOORE/Elfenbein
In relevant part, Panama argues that, even if the Parties are engaged in the “liquidation
process” Omega asserts is ongoing between them, the process has not yet resulted in a fixed
amount of money that both Parties agree is due from Panama to Omega under the construction
contracts. See ECF No. [66] at 15–19 (arguing that the liquidation process is not actually occurring
and, even if it were, it has not yet determined whether Panama owes Omega any amount, let alone
a fixed amount). Because in Panama’s view any potential setoff amount is still speculative and
not fixed, Omega’s Sixth Affirmative Defense raising setoff is invalid and therefore cannot meet
the relevance standard required to support a discovery request.
After considering the Parties’ arguments and supplemental authority, and conducting its
own research on the matter, the undersigned finds “it is not appropriate . . . to opine on whether
the affirmative defense of set-off is viable in this case.” See Kaminsky v. Nat’l Bureau Collection
Corp., No. 07-61604-CIV, 2008 WL 11330717, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2008). Although Panama
may be correct that Omega’s setoff defense will ultimately be deemed invalid, that decision is not
for the undersigned to make. “Significantly, the motion now before the Court for consideration is
not a motion to strike the affirmative defense nor is it a motion in limine to disallow” Omega “from
asserting the affirmative defense during the trial of this matter. Instead, the undersigned is
presented with a discovery motion . . . in connection with allowable discovery under” Rule
34 relating to Requests for Production “and the broader umbrella of Rule 26(b)(1).” See Kaminsky,
2008 WL 11330717, at *4. Whether Omega’s Sixth Affirmative Defense raising setoff is valid is
a merits question for Judge Moore or a jury. Cf. ECF No. [27] (requesting leave to amend answer,
in part so that Omega could add the setoff defense); ECF No. [60] (granting leave to amend answer
and allowing Omega to add the defense).
8
CASE NO. 24-CV-21097-MOORE/Elfenbein
Because Requests for Production No. 3 relates “to a defense in this matter (i.e., set-off) that
is not frivolous,” Omega “may fairly seek discovery in support of this affirmative defense pursuant
to Rules 36 and 26(b)(1).” See Kaminsky, 2008 WL 11330717, at *4. For this reason, Panama’s
objections to Request for Production No. 3 are OVERRULED. Panama must produce all nonprivileged documents related to the liquidation process under Panamanian law for the construction
contracts, including any accounting records, reports, or correspondence related to this process, no
later than November 12, 2024. 5 Any documents withheld based on privilege must be disclosed
on a privilege log within the same timeframe.
Discovery Dispute No. 5: According to the Notice, the Parties have the same dispute about
Request for Production No. 4 as they do about Request for Production No. 3. See ECF No. [59]
at 2. For that reason, the same analysis and conclusion apply. Accordingly, Panama’s objections
to Request for Production No. 4 are OVERRULED. Panama must produce all non-privileged
documents related to any payments or amounts it claims under the construction contracts that are
subject to the liquidation process no later than November 12, 2024. Any documents withheld
based on privilege must be disclosed on a privilege log within the same timeframe.
Discovery Dispute No. 6: According to the Notice, the Parties “dispute whether Request
for Production No. 5” seeks relevant information and is “overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
proportional to the needs of the case.” See ECF No. [59] at 2. At the Hearing, upon questioning
from the Court, Panama represented that it was not withholding any documents and that it has
nothing that is responsive to Request for Production No. 5 in its possession, custody, or control.
Based on Panama’s representations, Panama’s objections to Request for Production No. 5 are
Because the undersigned deferred ruling on Discovery Dispute Nos. 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11 at the Hearing and
ordered the Parties to provide supplemental research, Panama will have additional time to serve its
responses as it relates only to these specific Disputes.
5
9
CASE NO. 24-CV-21097-MOORE/Elfenbein
OVERRULED. The proper response when a party has no responsive documents (or no additional
responsive documents) is not to object on relevance (or other) grounds. Instead, the party should
make clear in its response that it has no (or no additional) responsive documents. Accordingly,
Panama must provide an Amended Response to Request for Production No. 5 clarifying that it has
nothing else responsive in its possession, custody, or control no later than November 12, 2024.
Discovery Dispute No. 7: According to the Notice, the Parties “dispute whether Request
for Production No. 7” is “is duplicative, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and proportional to the
needs of the case. See ECF No. [59] at 3. At the Hearing, Panama explained that it views Request
for Production No. 7 as duplicative of Request for Production No. 1. Based on Panama’s
representation, and for the same reasons discussed above as to Request for Production No. 1,
Panama’s objections to Request for Production No. 7 are OVERRULED. Panama must produce
all non-privileged documents related to any settlement discussions or negotiations between the
Parties regarding the ICSID Final Award no later than October 28, 2024. Any documents
withheld based on privilege must be disclosed on a privilege log within the same timeframe. If
the responsive documents are the same as (or contained within) those produced in response to
Request for Production No. 1, Panama may produce the documents once and simply identify the
Bates number ranges that correspond to Request for Production No. 7 and Request for Production
No. 1 respectively.
Discovery Dispute No. 8: According to the Notice, the Parties have the same dispute about
Request for Production No. 10 as they do about Request for Production Nos. 3 and 4. See ECF
No. [59] at 3. For that reason, the same analysis and decision apply. Accordingly, Panama’s
objections to Request for Production No. 10 are OVERRULED. Panama must produce all nonprivileged documents related to the termination of the construction contracts, including any
10
CASE NO. 24-CV-21097-MOORE/Elfenbein
notices, correspondence, and reports, no later than November 12, 2024. Any documents
withheld based on privilege must be disclosed on a privilege log within the same timeframe.
Discovery Dispute No. 9: According to the Notice, the Parties have the same dispute about
Request for Production No. 11 as they do about Request for Production Nos. 3, 4, and 10. See
ECF No. [59] at 3. For that reason, the same analysis and decision apply. Accordingly, Panama’s
objections to Request for Production No. 11 are OVERRULED. Panama must produce all nonprivileged documents related to the calculation and determination of the amounts owed under the
liquidation process for the construction contracts no later than November 12, 2024. Any
documents withheld based on privilege must be disclosed on a privilege log within the same
timeframe.
Discovery Dispute No. 10: According to the Notice, the Parties have substantially the same
dispute about Request for Production No. 12 as they do about Request for Production Nos. 3, 4,
10, and 11. See ECF No. [59] at 3. For that reason, the same analysis and decision apply, with one
caveat. The Court agrees with Panama that Omega’s request for documents related to reviews or
inspections of the construction contracts is irrelevant to its Sixth Affirmative Defense of setoff.
As a result, the Court will SUSTAIN Panama’s objections to Request for Production No. 12 to the
extent those objections relate to reviews or inspections. Panama’s other objections to Request for
Production No. 12 are OVERRULED. Panama must produce all non-privileged documents
related to any audits of the construction contracts by Panama or on Panama’s behalf conducted
after the arbitration award was entered 6 and such documents must be produced no later than
November 12, 2024. Any documents withheld based on privilege must be disclosed on a privilege
log within the same timeframe.
During the Hearing, Omega explained that the intended temporal scope of Request No. 12 is the time
period after the arbitration award was entered. The same time limitation applies to Request No. 13.
6
11
CASE NO. 24-CV-21097-MOORE/Elfenbein
Discovery Dispute No. 11: According to the Notice, the Parties have the same dispute
about Request for Production No. 13 as they do about Request for Production Nos. 3, 4, 10, 11,
and 12. See ECF No. [59] at 3. For that reason, the same analysis and decision apply, with one
caveat. The Court agrees with Panama that Omega’s request for documents related to
investigations or reviews into Omega’s performance of the construction contracts is irrelevant to
its Sixth Affirmative Defense of setoff. As a result, the Court will SUSTAIN Panama’s objections
to Request for Production No. 13 to the extent those objections relate to investigations or reviews.
Panama’s other objections to Request for Production No. 13 are OVERRULED. Panama must
produce all non-privileged documents related to any audits conducted by Panama or on Panama’s
behalf after the arbitration award was entered that relate to Omega’s performance of the
construction contracts and such documents must be produced no later than November 12, 2024.
Any documents withheld based on privilege must be disclosed on a privilege log within the same
timeframe.
Discovery Dispute No. 13: According to the Notice, the Parties dispute whether Panama’s
“incorporation of ‘Additional Objections’ into each response, complies with the Court’s discovery
rules and leaves Respondents uncertain as to whether their requests have been fully answered.”
See ECF No. [59] at 4; ECF No. [59-2] at 25–27 (listing fifteen general objections that Panama
“incorporated by reference into each of” its “Responses and Specific Objections”). At the Hearing,
the Court agreed that most of Panama’s “additional objections” were explicitly prohibited by the
Court’s Order Setting Discovery Procedures. See ECF No. [10] at 5–7. Notwithstanding the
Court’s prohibitions on general objections, Panama maintained its objections based on privilege
and scope. Upon questioning by the Court, the Parties indicated that they had not conferred about
which Panamanian Ministry is the appropriate document custodian for Omega’s Requests for
12
CASE NO. 24-CV-21097-MOORE/Elfenbein
Production. Based on the Parties’ representations and the Court’s Order Setting Discovery
Procedures, see ECF No. [10] at 5–7, Panama’s “additional objections” are OVERRULED except
as set forth below. To the extent Panama claims legal privilege, the process for doing so is already
set out in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 34. As a result, Panama can preserve its
privilege objections by producing a privilege log at the same time it produces any non-privileged
responsive documents. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). As to Panama’s objections to scope, the
Court DIRECTS the Parties to meet and confer about which Panamanian Ministry is the
appropriate document custodian for Omega’s Requests for Production. If, after that conferral, the
Parties still have a dispute about the appropriate scope or custodian, they may follow the Court’s
Order Setting Discovery Procedures to request the Court’s assistance. See ECF No. [10] at 1–4.
Ore tenus Discovery Dispute: At the Hearing, Omega explained that Panama objects to
Request for Production No. 6, which sought “all documents related to any liens, levies, or seizures
of property or assets of Respondents in Panama or any other jurisdiction in relation to the
enforcement of the ICSID Final Award.” See ECF No. [59-2] at 16–17. Specifically, Panama
argues that Request for Production No. 6 is irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not
proportional to the needs of the case. See ECF No. [59-2] at 16–17. Subject to those objections,
Panama also responds that “there are no responsive documents.” See ECF No. [59-2] at 16–17.
Upon questioning by the Court, Omega clarified that Request for Production No. 6 relates to its
Sixth Affirmative Defense, and Panama reiterated that it has no responsive documents. The Court
then instructed Panama’s counsel to confirm with his client that no responsive documents exist
and, if responsive documents do exist, to file a notice on the docket indicating that fact no later
than October 10, 2024. No such notice was filed. As a result, based on Panama’s representations,
Panama’s objections to Request for Production No. 6 are OVERRULED. The proper response
13
CASE NO. 24-CV-21097-MOORE/Elfenbein
when a party has no responsive documents (or no additional responsive documents) is not to object
on relevance (or other) grounds. Instead, the party should make clear in its response that it has no
(or no additional) responsive documents.
Accordingly, Panama must provide an amended
response to Request for Production No. 6 clarifying that it has nothing else responsive in its
possession, custody, or control no later than October 28, 2024.
For the reasons explained above, Omega’s Oral Motion to Compel better answers to their
first set of written discovery requests, ECF No. [69], is GRANTED in part. The Parties shall
comply with the Court’s directives set out above.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida on October 22, 2024.
_____________________________________
MARTY FULGUEIRA ELFENBEIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: All counsel of record
14
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?