1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CONSOLIDATED ACTION

CASE NO. 20-60851-CIV-SINGHAL

CASE NO. 20-22207-CIV-SINGHAL

CASE NO. 20-22316-CIV-SINGHAL

CASE NO. 20-22594-CIV-SINGHAL

IN RE: UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI COVID-19 

TUITION AND FEE REFUND LITIGATION

________________________________________/

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO FULLY ANSWER PLAINTIFFS’ 

FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

Defendant, University of Miami (the “University”), by and through its undersigned 

counsel, hereby responds in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant to Fully Answer 

Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Admission (“Motion”). 

BACKGROUND

On December 28, 2021, Plaintiff, Adelaide Dixon, served the University with her First Set 

of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Admission. On January 27, 2022, the University 

served its Answers to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories1(Exhibit A) and Responses to 

Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Admission (Exhibit B). On February 2, 2022, Plaintiff sent the 

University a letter regarding alleged deficiencies and requests for supplemental answers and 

responses (Exhibit C). The parties met and conferred on February 24, 2022 (the “Meet and 

Confer”). By stipulation, the parties agreed to a one-week extension of the deadline to file a motion 

to compel to March 7, 2022. 

1 On February 11, 2022, the Interrogatories were subsequently verified. 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 95-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2022 Page 1 of 13
2

On March 7, 2022, in accordance with its meet and confer discussion with Plaintiffs, the 

University supplemented its answers to the interrogatories and responses to requests for admission. 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel was filed immediately thereafter and “crossed in the mail” with the 

University’s supplemental answers and responses.

ARGUMENT

The majority of the issues set forth in the Motion are moot. As to the remaining issues, the 

Motion should be denied because Plaintiffs largely seek overbroad and unduly burdensome 

information from the University that is irrelevant to their claims.

I. Mooted Issues.

Many of the discovery disputes alleged by Plaintiffs in their Motion are now moot. In 

accordance with the meet and confer between counsel, the University adequately supplemented 

many of the formerly disputed interrogatories, providing more than eight (8) pages of additional 

information, and all of the formerly disputed requests for admission. 

In their Motion, Plaintiffs disputed the University’s objections and/or answers to

Interrogatories 1, 3-6, 8, 10, 11-15, as well the University’s “General Objections” and the 

incorporation of the same into their answers. In its March 7, 2022, Supplemental Answers to 

Plaintiff, Adelaide Dixon’s First Set of Interrogatories (“Supplemental Answers”), the University 

supplemented the following: Interrogatory #3 (subsections a, b, d and i); Interrogatory #4 

(subsections a, c, h); Interrogatory #5; Interrogatory #6; Interrogatory #11; Interrogatory #13; 

Interrogatory #14; and removed the “General Objections” in their entirety.

2 Additionally, during 

2

In their Motion, Plaintiffs dispute Interrogatory #1 based on the “General Objections” that

have since been removed. Accordingly, Interrogatory #1 is no longer in dispute.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 95-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2022 Page 2 of 13
3

the Meet and Confer, pursuant to Plaintiffs’ request, the University clarified its answer in regard 

to Interrogatories #8 and #15 - - “[n]ot applicable” - - to mean “none.” Therefore, only the 

following interrogatories remain at issue: Interrogatory #3 (subsections c, e, f, g, h); Interrogatory 

#4 (subsections b, d, e, f, g); Interrogatory #6; Interrogatory #10; and Interrogatory #12.

In regard to the Requests for Admission, Plaintiffs disputed the University’s objections 

and/or responses to Requests for Admission 10-17, 19-24, 26-33, 38, as well the University’s 

“General Objections” and the incorporation of the same into their responses. However, in its March 

7, 2022, Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff, Adelaide Dixon’s First Set of Requests for 

Admission (“Supplemental Responses”), the University removed all objections from Requests for 

Admissions 10-17, 19-24, 26-33, 38, and removed the “General Objections” in their entirety. 

Therefore, no Requests for Admission remain at issue. 

II. Discovery Disputes Remaining at Issue.

A. Interrogatory #3 (subsections c, e, f, g, h).

Interrogatory #3 seeks, in several subsections, detailed information concerning mandatory 

student fees. Subsection (c) seeks the “amount and type of expense each Mandatory Student Fee 

was budgeted to cover . . . .” Subsection (e) seeks “how the revenue from the fee was spent in 

relation to how it was originally budgeted.” Subsection (f) seeks the “number of students who had 

access to, and . . . who actually used, the benefits each Mandatory Student Fee was intended to 

cover.” Subsection (g) seeks “the number, by job title, of any Employees associated with the 

provision of any facilities, services, activities, or benefits paid in full or in part by the Mandatory 

Student Fees and the hours worked from the beginning of Spring 2019 through the present.” 

Subsection (h) seeks “the number, by job title, of any Employees included in . . . subparagraph 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 95-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2022 Page 3 of 13
4

3(g) . . . that were terminated or furloughed and the savings from such employment actions on 

account of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

In violation of Local Rule 26.1(g)(2)3, Plaintiffs mischaracterized the University’s 

objections to Interrogatory #3, by summarizing the University’s objections rather than providing

the Court with the University’s specific objections. Mot. at 6.

Moreover, the University, in part, objected to this Interrogatory on the ground that it seeks 

information that is not relevant and is not proportional to the needs of the case, in that the 

University already has refunded student fees on a pro-rata basis4. Despite this, in its Supplemental 

Answers, the University provided Plaintiffs with much of the fee information sought. Suppl. 

Answers at 6-7.

However, subsections (c), (e), (f), (g) and (h) simply go too far. Accordingly, the University 

properly objected as to the scope being overly broad and unduly burdensome.5 With respect to 

3 Except for motions grounded upon complete failure to respond to the discovery sought to 

be compelled or upon assertion of general or blanket objections to discovery, motions to compel 

discovery in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33, 34, 36 and 37, or to compel 

compliance with subpoenas for production or inspection pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 45(c)(2)(B), shall, for each separate interrogatory, question, request for production, 

request for admission, subpoena request, or deposition question, state: (A) verbatim the specific 

item to be compelled; (B) the specific objections; (C) the grounds assigned for the objection (if 

not apparent from the objection); and (D) the reasons assigned as supporting the motion as it relates 

to that specific item. The party shall write this information in immediate succession to enable the 

Court to rule separately on each individual item in the motion.

4 Plaintiffs have repeatedly conceded that such refunds already have been issued (Def.’s 

Mot. Dismiss Consolid. Class Action Compl. at 7 – 9, 21) (Def.’s Answer and Affirm. Defenses ¶ 

76).

5 The University’s objection provided: “it is overly broad and unduly burdensome in that it 

is not reasonably tailored in scope and instead broadly seeks nine subcategories of incredibly 

detailed information relating to mandatory student fees, including an essential re-creation of the 

University’s financial operations during such time as well as hours worked of every University 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 95-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2022 Page 4 of 13
5

subsections (c) and (e), fees are not budged nor accounted for in the manner which these 

subsections suggest. Additionally, to answer this interrogatory would essentially require the recreation of the University’s entire financial operations. It would be unduly burdensome for the 

University to breakdown fees in the manner sought and would not be warranted considering the 

fees at issue already have been refunded to Plaintiffs. With respect to subsection (f), again, fees 

are not budged nor accounted for in the manner suggested. Additionally, it would be unduly 

burdensome for the University to ascertain the information sought, if it would even be possible at 

all. Considering the amount of information and detail sought by Plaintiffs, the University would, 

for example, have to review and gather information such as each students’ student I.D. swipes for 

any and all of the intended facilities, if such data is even available. 

With respect to subsections (g) and (h), which seek the employment information and 

employment status of “any Employees associated with the provision of any facilities, services, 

activities, or benefits paid in full or in part by the Mandatory Student Fees,” the University employs 

approximately 15,000 employees across multiple geographic units and various facilities

throughout South Florida. Accordingly, an accounting of the number, job title and hours worked 

of any Employees associated with the facilities, services, activities, or benefits paid in full or in 

part by the Mandatory Student Fees would be impractical, if not impossible, to perform. 

B. Interrogatory #4 (subsections b, d, e, f, g).

Interrogatory #4 seeks, in several subsections, detailed information concerning tuition.

Subsection (b) seeks the “amount and type(s) of expense the tuition was budgeted to cover . . . .” 

Subsection (d) seeks “how the revenue for the tuition was spent in relation to how it was originally 

employee during such time, etc.” Suppl. Answers at 5, 6.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 95-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2022 Page 5 of 13
6

budgeted.” Subsection (e) seeks the “revenue, profit, and loss associated with Students’ tuition 

payments.” Subsection (f) seeks “the number, by job title, of any Employees associated with the 

provision of any facilities, services, activities, or benefits paid in full or in part by tuition and the 

hours worked from the beginning of Spring 2019 through the present.” Subsection (g) seeks “the 

number, by job title, of any Employees included in . . . subparagraph 4(f) . . . that were terminated

or furloughed and the savings from such employment actions on account of the COVID-19 

pandemic.”

Again, in violation of Local Rule 26.1(g)(2), Plaintiffs mischaracterized the University’s 

objections to Interrogatory #4, by summarizing the University’s objections rather than providing 

the Court with the University’s specific objections. Mot. at 6.

Moreover, despite the University’s objections, the University provided Plaintiffs with 

much of tuition information sought. Suppl. Answers at 9-10. However, subsections (b), (d), and 

(e) seek information pertaining to the University’s pricing of tuition, which is confidential and 

proprietary non-public information the non-disclosure of which provides the University with 

independent economic value, actual or potential, and the disclosure of which would provide other 

third parties with economic value. Plaintiffs’ alleged need for the documentation requested, if any, 

is outweighed by the University’s interest in maintaining the confidentiality of such information.

See Tillman v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 297 F.R.D. 660, 664 (M.D. Fla. 2014) (“This standard requires the 

district court to balance the party's interest in obtaining access against the other party's interest in 

keeping the information confidential.” Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc, 263 

F.3d 1304, 1313 (citing Farnsworth v. Procter & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1547 (11th 

Cir.1985)); In re Denture Cream Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 09–2051–MD, 2013 WL 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 95-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2022 Page 6 of 13
7

214672, at *10. Additionally, tuition is not necessarily budgeted nor accounted for in the manner 

in which these subsections (b, d, e) suggest. To answer would require the University to re-create 

records of its entire financial operations. Therefore, it would be unduly burdensome for the 

University to ascertain the information sought, if it would even be possible at all.

In relation to subsections (f) and (g), which seek the employment information and 

employment status of “any Employees associated with the provision of any facilities, services, 

activities, or benefits paid in full or in part by the Tuition,” the University employs approximately 

15,000 employees across multiple geographic units and various facilitiesthroughout South Florida.

An accounting of the number, job title and hours worked of any Employees associated with the 

facilities, services, activities, or benefits paid in full or in part by the Mandatory Student Fees 

would be impractical, if not impossible, to perform. 

C. Interrogatory #6. 

Interrogatory #6 seeks, in several subsections, detailed information concerning the 

University’s, current and former, websites and social media accounts, used to: (a) market programs 

to prospective, incoming and current students; (b) explain tuition and Mandatory Student Fees; (c) 

explain Housing policies and/or rates; (d) explain Meal Plan policies and/or fees; (e) explain the 

enrollment process; (f) identify and display enrollment forms; (g) describe, provide, or allow for 

course selection and registration; (h) allow for payments of tuition or fees online; (i) describe any 

refund, credit, or other monetary adjustment policy in response to COVID-19; and (j) discuss or 

address COVID-19.

As to any current websites and social media accounts, the University provided links to each 

subcategory sought by Plaintiffs, as well as all current social media accounts in its Supplemental 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 95-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2022 Page 7 of 13
8

Answers. Suppl. Answers at 12-13. Additionally, the University removed its “equally accessible” 

objections in its Supplemental Answers. Suppl. Answers at 12.

Any former website or social media account is not relevant and not proportional to the 

needs of this case. Additionally, this information is overly broad and unduly burdensome in scope. 

The information sought is not readily accessible to the University and it would be impractical, if 

not impossible, to search for ten subcategories of former webpages. 

D. Interrogatory #10.

Interrogatory #10 seeks information concerning “any consulting company, marketing

company, public relations company or lobbying company to which you have paid money and any

trade organization(s)” of which the University has been a member over the past ten (10) years. 

Again, in violation of Local Rule 26.1(g)(2), Plaintiffs mischaracterized the University’s 

objections to Interrogatory #10, by summarizing the University’s objections rather than providing 

the Court with the University’s specific objections. Mot. at 10. In fact, Plaintiffs allege that it is

overly broad and unduly burdensome objection, “is not clearly articulated,” despite Plaintiffs 

specific objection.6 Answers at 11. 

Moreover, Interrogatory #10 is not at all limited to the Plaintiffs’ claims. For example, 

Plaintiffs have not tailored this interrogatory to pertain to COVID-19, online schooling, tuition - -

or to any of their claims or defenses. It would additionally be impractical, if not impossible, to 

perform a search of “any consulting company, marketing company, public relations company or

6 The University’s objection provided: “(ii) it is overly broad and unduly burdensome in that 

it is not reasonably tailored in time or scope and instead broadly seeks information pertaining to

“any consulting company, marketing company, public relations company or lobbying company 

. . .” in which the University has been a member over “the previous ten (10) years.”

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 95-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2022 Page 8 of 13
9

lobbying company to which you have paid money and any trade organization(s)” of which the 

University has been a member, over the past 10 years. 

E. Interrogatory #12. 

Interrogatory #12 seeks to identify “students enrolled for the Spring 2020 semester, the 

tuition, Mandatory Student Fees, Housing rates, and Meal Plan fees charged and paid, and 

any refund(s), credit(s) or other monetary adjustment(s) (i.e., scholarships or grants) made to each 

Student account.”

Again, in violation of Local Rule 26.1(g)(2), Plaintiffs mischaracterized the University’s 

objections to Interrogatory #12, by summarizing the University’s objections rather than providing 

the Court with the University’s specific objections. Mot. at 11.

Moreover, Interrogatory #12, seeks class discovery prior to certification and seeks 

information that is not relevant and is not proportional to the needs of the case but, rather, is merely 

an attempt to identify individuals for the sending of notice of a class action, as opposed to for the 

purpose of discovering information “relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” 

Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351–53, 98 S.Ct. 2380, 57 L.Ed.2d 253 (1978); 

(Brotz v. Simm Associates, Inc., 617CV1603ORL40TBS, 2018 WL 7269700, at *7 (M.D. Fla. May 

8, 2018) (“the Supreme Court has rejected pre-class certification discovery of identifying 

information of potential class members when such information is sought merely for the purpose 

of identifying such individuals for notice of a class action.”).

Additionally, it would be unduly burdensome for the University to ascertain the 

information requested, as it would require the University not only to identify thousands of students

and the tuition, fee and refund information for each such student, but, in order to comply with 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 95-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2022 Page 9 of 13
10

FERPA, the University would be required to separately review and redact all such identifying 

information. The burden and difficulties associated with gathering and preparing such information

far outweighs any potential need for such information, particularly at this stage of the proceedings. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant, University of Miami, for the reasons stated above, respectfully 

requests that the Court: (i) deny Plaintiffs’ Motion; (ii) award attorneys’ fees and costs to the 

University to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law; and (iii) grant such other relief as the

Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances.

Respectfully submitted,

ISICOFF RAGATZ

601 Brickell Key Drive, Suite 750

Miami, Florida 33131

Tel: (305) 373-3232

Fax: (305) 373-3233

By: /s/ Eric D. Isicoff

Eric D. Isicoff

Florida Bar No. 372201

Isicoff@irlaw.com

Teresa Ragatz

Florida Bar No. 545170

Ragatz@irlaw.com

Matthew L. Lines

Florida Bar No. 243980

Lines@irlaw.com

Christopher M. Yannuzzi

Florida Bar No. 92166

Yannuzzi@irlaw.com

Lead Counsel for Defendant, University of Miami

and

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 95-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2022 Page 10 of 13
11

NELSON MULLINS BROAD AND CASSEL

Mark F. Raymond

Florida Bar No. 373397

2 S. Biscayne Boulevard

One Biscayne Tower, 21st Floor

Miami, Florida 33131

Tel: (305) 373-9425

E-mail: mark.raymond@nelsonmullins.com

Co-Counsel for Defendant, University of Miami

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 95-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2022 Page 11 of 13
12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served via 

e-mail this 16th day of March, 2022, upon the following: 

Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Sarah N. Westcot

701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420

Miami, FL 33131-2800

Tel: (305) 330-5512

Fax: (305) 676-9006

E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com

Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Steve W. Berman (admitted pro hac vice)

1301 2nd Ave., Suite 2000

Seattle, WA 98101

Tel.: (206) 623-7292

E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel

Anastopoulo Law Firm, LLC 

Roy T. Willey, IV (admitted pro hac vice)

32 Ann Street

Charleston, SC 29403

Tel. (843) 614-8888

E-mail: roy@akimlawfirm.com

Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel

Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Andrew J. Obergfell (admitted pro hac vice)

888 Seventh Avenue

New York, NY 10019

Tel.: (646) 837-7150

Fax: (212) 989-9163

E-mail: aobergfell@bursor.com

Counsel for Plaintiff, Valeria Dimitryuk

Grossman Roth Yaffa Cohen, P.A.

Stuart Z. Grossman

Rachel W. Furst

2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1150

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Tel.: (305)442-8666

E-mail: szg@grossmanroth.com

E-mail: rwf@grossmanroth.com

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Daniel J. Kurowski (admitted pro hac vice)

Whitney K. Siehl (admitted pro hac vice)

455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410

Chicago, IL 60611

Tel.: (708) 628-4949

E-mail: dank@hbsslaw.com

E-mail: whitneys@hbsslaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff, Michael Weiss

Eggnatz Pascucci, P.A.

Joshua Harris Eggnatz

Michael James Pascucci

7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230

Davie, FL 33314

Tel. (954) 889-3359

Fax (954) 889-5913

E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com

E-mail: MPascucci@JusticeEarned.com

Leeds Brown Law, P.C.

Michael A. Tompkins (admitted pro hac vice)

Brett R. Cohen (admitted pro hac vice)

One Old Country Road, Suite 347,

Carle Place, New York 11514

Tel.: (516) 873-9550

E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com

E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff, Julie Gold

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 95-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2022 Page 12 of 13
13

Anastopoulo Law Firm, LLC 

Justin S. Hemlepp

Eric M. Poulin (admitted pro hac vice)

Blake G. Abbott (admitted pro hac vice)

32 Ann Street

Charleston, SC 29403

Tel. (843) 614-8888

E-mail: justinh@akimlawfirm.com

E-mail: eric@akimlawfirm.com

E-mail: blake@akimlawfirm.com. 

Counsel for Plaintiff, Adelaide Dixon

By: /s/ Eric D. Isicoff

Eric D. Isicoff

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 95-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2022 Page 13 of 13