Judge Edwin G. Torres

Parties shall not make conclusory 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 Fed.R.Civ.P. 34, the objection shall state with specificity all grounds.” Blanket, unsupported objections that a discovery request is “vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome” are, by themselves, meaningless, and disregarded by the Court. A party objecting on these bases must explain the specific and particular ways in which a request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome.

Counsel shall include in the answer a clear statement that all responsive documents/information identified have in fact been produced/provided, or

As with the previous objection, an objection that a discovery request is irrelevant or 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. Parties are reminded that the Federal Rules allow for broad discovery, which does not need to be admissible at trial.

Parties should avoid reciting a formulaic objection (or worse “General objections”) followed by an answer to the request. It has become common practice for a party to object on the basis of any of the 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 a boilerplate objection and answer preserves nothing, and constitutes only a waste of effort and the 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 only a portion of it has been answered.

If the burden to sustain an objection is satisfied, the requesting party will have to show with specificity how the information is relevant and necessary, and proportional to the particular needs of the case.

In the event of an unresolved discovery dispute, to show that the requested discovery is objectionable the burden is on the objecting party to demonstrate with specificity how the objected-to request is unreasonable.

Relatedly, the parties shall not wait until the end of the discovery period to begin taking any depositions.

Objections to the scope of a deposition notice shall be timely served (not filed) in advance of the deposition. See King v. Pratt & Whitney, 161 F.R.D. 475 (S.D. Fla. 1995); New World Network Ltd. v. M/V Norwegian Sea, 2007 WL 1068124, at *2-3 (S.D. Fla. 2007).

On the same day that the Court confirms an available time on the discovery calendar, the movant will file a Motion for Hearing reflecting the confirmed date and time. This motion shall also set forth the category of the discovery matters to be heard and the status of the parties' pre-filing efforts as to that issue/request.

To that end, the Court will strictly enforce Rule 26(a)(1) that sets forth the “Required Disclosures” that shall be made at the inception of the discovery period.

Local Rule 26.1(e)(2)(B) requires that objections based upon privilege identify the specific nature of the privilege being asserted, as well as identifying such things as the nature and subject matter of the communication at issue, the sender and receiver of the communication and their relationship to each other, among others.

If a party receives inadequate or untimely disclosures that matter shall be promptly raised with the Court, after conferral and if agreement is not timely reached on resolution.