MLAKE 95, LLC v. SVN Mangement, Inc.

Filing 6

ORDER granting 4 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response as to 1 MOTION to Compel; denying as moot 1 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 6/23/17. (loh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
MLAKE 95, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

)
)
)
)
)

MC417-005

)
SVN MANAGEMENT, INC., d/b/a
SPERRY VAN NESS ASSET
MANAGEMENT AND LEASING,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)

ORDER
Plaintiff Mlake 95, LLC, seeks to compel SVN Management, Inc.,
to comply with a third party subpoena issued by the Western District of
Oklahoma in another case.

Doc. 1; see Mlake 95, LLC v. Judith J.

Berry, Trustee of the E&J Berry Revocable Trust u/t/d Agust 25, 2007,
W.D. Okla. No. CV16-813-W. In response1 to six document requests,
SVN produced 18 documents and contended four of the requests were
protected by the attorney/client and work product privileges. Doc. 1 at
3; id. at Exh. 1 (subpoena), Exh. 3 (SVN’s objections and responses to
the subpoena). After some back and forth, the parties agreed that SVN

SVN’s motion for an extension of time to file its response (doc. 4) is GRANTED, albeit
moot.
1

would produce a privilege log. Doc. 1 at 3; id. at Exhs. 5 & 6 (meet and
confer letters).

Plaintiff contends, however, that despite numerous

requests SVN has failed to provide a privilege log of all withheld
documents and “refused to confirm that all non-privileged responsive
documents had been produced and that no responsive documents were
being withheld on the basis of any objection other than attorney-client
or work product doctrine.” Doc. 1 at 3-4. SVN, however, has produced a
privilege log and attested that it “is not aware of any documents being
withheld for any reason other than privilege.” Doc. 5 at 1. Though it is
unclear just when SVN produced that privilege log (before or after
Mlake 95 filed its motion, SVN doesn’t say), Mlake 95’s motion (doc. 1)
is now denied as MOOT.2

The Court notes Mlake’s irritation with SVN’s reliance on “boilerplate objections” in its
response to the subpoena. Doc. 1. However, SVN did not hide behind those objections and
refuse to respond -- it objected to the requests insofar as they were “unduly burdensome,
an improper form of discovery, and exceed the scope of permissible discovery,” sought
material outside of SVN’s possession, custody, or control, or sought privileged information
and then answered by providing unprivileged responsive documents (and, eventually, a
privilege log). Id. at Exh. 3.
2

While such general responses can complicate discovery and discovery disputes by
leaving the requesting party unsure of what’s been produced or withheld and why, see, e.g.,
Williams v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 2007 WL 1630875 at *3 (N.D. Ga. June 4, 2007) (parties “should
refrain from asserting boilerplate, non-specific objections” to discovery requests because
the “constant inclusion of such boilerplate objections [ ] unnecessarily cloud[s] the
discovery process and invite[s] dispute and disagreement by needlessly sowing doubt
about the exhaustiveness of [the] production and responses”), here, SVN specifically
2

SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of June, 2017.

explained that it was only withholding documents on the basis of privilege and would
produce otherwise responsive, nonprivileged documents. See, e.g., doc. 1 at Exh. 3 at
Request No. 1 (“Respondent objects to the extent the request calls for documents protected
by the attorney/client and/or work product privileges. Subject to the foregoing,
responsive documents will be produced as set forth above.”).
3