UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. __-CIV-TORRES

CONSENT CASE

__,

Plaintiff,

vs.

__,

Defendant.
____________________________________/

ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY PROCEDURES

THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. In order to facilitate the speedy

and inexpensive resolution of this action, Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the following discovery procedures will

apply in this case as of the date of this Order:

1. The Court strictly enforces the guidelines on discovery objections set forth

below, together with the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addressing

discovery matters, Rules 26-37, and S.D. Fla. Local Rule 26.1:

“Vague, Overly Broad and Unduly Burdensome”

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. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); Josephs v. Harris Corp, 677

F.2d 985, 992 (3d Cir. 1982) (“the 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.”). Sworn testimony or evidence may be

necessary to show that a particular request is in fact burdensome.

“Irrelevant Or Not Reasonably Calculated to Lead to Admissible Evidence”

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.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); see Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351-

52 (1978); see also Local Rule 26.1(G)(3)(a).

No Formulaic Objections

Parties should avoid reciting 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

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. Civil Discovery Standards, 2004

A.B.A. Sec. Lit. 18; see also Local Rule 26.1(G)(3)(a). Counsel should at least include

in the answer a clear statement that all responsive documents identified have in fact

been produced, or otherwise describe the category of documents that have been

withheld on the basis of the objection.

Objections Based upon Privilege

Generalized objections asserting attorney-client privilege or work product

doctrine also do not comply with 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 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. Parties are instructed to review this Local

Rule carefully, and refrain from objections in the form of: “Objection. This information

is protected by attorney/client and/or work product privilege.”

2. If a bona fide discovery dispute arises notwithstanding these guidelines,

the parties must first confer in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute in compliance

with S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1 (A)(3). Counsel must under this Local Rule certify that good

faith efforts were made. An adequate certificate of conference almost always requires

at least one, if not more, personal communications between counsel. Note, especially,

that un-responded to emails are not enough to satisfy counsel’s obligations under this
Rule. The Court will deem an issue waived if counsel fails to abide by this obligation

or fails to certify compliance with the Rule.

3. Discovery disputes must be raised timely as required by S.D. Fla. L.R.

26.1 (H). The Court also strictly enforces this Rule, and interprets the thirty-day

window as the opportunity during which good faith resolution efforts must be made.

The Court also enforces Rule 26.1 (F)(2) that requires that all discovery, including

resolution of discovery disputes, be fully completed prior to the expiration of the

discovery cutoff. The parties are generally free to engage in agreed-upon discovery

after the cutoff date; but by virtue of the Rule no Court intervention or remedy will be

available to either party after the cutoff date.

4. The Court currently does not maintain a regular discovery calendar. The

party seeking to enforce a discovery obligation or obtain protection from such an

obligation should file a motion with the Court, after conferring with the opposing side,

if the moving party concludes that the discovery dispute would be better and more

efficiently resolved through a more deliberate motion process. If there is agreement

between the parties that a discovery hearing should be scheduled in lieu of briefing,

the Court will schedule a discovery hearing when requested.

5. If a discovery motion is filed, the motion and response should be fully and

completed drafted, and any objections being litigated should be supported with

appropriate sworn evidence or documentation. Additionally, if a motion for protective

order is filed to comply with Rule 26(c), Rule 30(d)(3), or Local Rule 26.1.J, it must be

filed as soon as possible and should not be filed only on the eve of the event. Note as
well, however, that if a deposition scheduling dispute arises prior to a deposition, a

written notice of objection followed by a good faith conference to resolve the dispute

will be sufficient to preserve the issues involved without fear of waiver prior to the

Court resolving the dispute at a discovery conference. See also S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(j).

Rule 37, however, continues to apply to such objections; thus if the Court finds that the

objections were not substantially justified the failure to comply with a timely served

Rule 30 deposition notice shall be sanctioned appropriately.

6. If the parties opt for a discovery hearing in lieu of briefing, the moving

party, after conferring with the opposing party, shall contact the undersigned’s

Chambers at (305) 523-5750 with three proposed date/times for the hearing, preferably

on the next available Friday morning or afternoon. The Court will issue an Order

setting hearing on the discovery dispute at the next available opportunity.

7. After a scheduling Order is entered, the movant shall provide notice to all

relevant parties of the matters that will be raised, which notice shall briefly specify the

substance of the discovery matter to be heard and the requested relief in the form of

specific proposed language for the discovery Order. Ordinarily, no more than thirty

(30) minutes per side is granted for argument on discovery issues. The parties shall

provide the undersigned a copy of all source materials relevant to the discovery

dispute, via hand-delivery or through a scanned PDF document that is emailed to the

CM/ECF mailbox ([email protected]), no later than three days before the

scheduled hearing. (For example, if the dispute concerns interrogatories, the

interrogatories at issue and the response thereto, shall be provided to the

party with the burden of persuasion on a privilege claim has the obligation to present

to the Court, no later than the time of the hearing, sworn evidence if necessary to

satisfy that burden. The failure to present that sworn evidence by the date of the

hearing may be deemed by the Court a waiver of the privilege absent a showing of good

cause.

8. To reiterate, the Court expects all parties to engage in reasonable

compromise to facilitate the resolution of their discovery disputes. The Court may

impose sanctions, monetary or otherwise, if the Court determines discovery is being

improperly sought or is being withheld in bad faith or without substantial justification.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this __ day of __,

2015.

/s/ Edwin G. Torres