UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

 

ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY PROCEDURES

THIS CAUSE is before the Court following the referral of this action for all 

discovery matters. 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”

a. 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 

Case 1:20-cv-21976-RNS Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 1 of 7
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” 

b. 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). 

Specificity and Scope of Objections

c. 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. Counsel shall include in the 

answer a clear statement that all responsive documents/information 

identified have in fact been produced/provided, or otherwise describe the 

Case 1:20-cv-21976-RNS Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 2 of 7
category of documents/ information that have been withheld on the basis of 

the objection. 

Objections Based upon Privilege

d. Generalized objections asserting attorney-client privilege or work 

product doctrine also do not comply with local rules. 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. 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.” 

Objections to Scope of 30(b)(6) Notices for Depositions

e. Corporations are not entitled to review of anticipatory relevance 

objections prior to the taking of a corporate representative deposition. 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). 

Burden to Sustain Objections

f. 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. Rossbach v. Rundle, 128 F. Supp. 2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2000); 

Dunkin’ Donuts, Inc. v. Mary’s Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001); 

Case 1:20-cv-21976-RNS Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 3 of 7
Milinazzo v. State Farm Ins. Co., 247 F.R.D. 691, 695 (S.D. Fla. 2007). Failure to 

satisfy this burden will result in entry of an order compelling discovery under Rule 

37. Failure to show that the objecting party’s position was substantially justified will 

result in entry of monetary sanctions under that Rule. 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. Henderson v. Holiday CVS, L.L.C., 269 F.R.D. 682, 686 (S.D. Fla. 2010); 

Lombardi v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 2015 WL 12085849, at *1 (S.D. Fla. 2015) (citing 

2015 Amdt. Rule 26(b)). 

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. 

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

26.1(g)(1). The Court strictly enforces this Rule, and interprets the thirty-day 

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

(subject to the seven-day agreed extension permitted by the rule). Unapproved 

extensions agreed to by the parties shall not be recognized. The Court also enforces 

Rule 26.1(d) that requires that all discovery, including resolution of discovery 

Case 1:20-cv-21976-RNS Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 4 of 7
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 under 

Rule 26.1(d) no Court intervention or remedy will be available to either party after 

the cutoff date. 

3. Except as provided below, discovery disputes shall not be raised by 

filing discovery motions under Rule 37. 

a. Any discovery motion filed on the docket shall be Stricken.1 In lieu of 

traditional motion practice, a regular discovery calendar shall be held every Friday, 

from 10:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., at the James Lawrence King Federal Justice Building, 

99 NE 4th Street, Tenth Floor, Courtroom 5, Miami, Florida 33132. 

b. The party seeking to enforce a discovery obligation or obtain protection 

from such an obligation shall utilize the discovery calendar process. After conferring 

with the opposing party to confirm available dates, the moving party shall contact the 

undersigned’s Chambers at (305) 523-5750 and place the matter on the next available 

discovery calendar. The movant must contact Chambers no later than noon on the 

Friday preceding the discovery calendar to schedule a time on that week’s calendar. 

Ordinarily, no more than fifteen (15) minutes of argument per side is permitted. 

c. On the same day that the Court confirms an available time on the 

discovery calendar, the Court will enter a Notice of Hearing. The movant shall file a 

 

1 This restriction does not apply to motions to stay discovery altogether (which 

are often premised on pending dispositive motions that are believed to moot the 

necessity of any and all forms of discovery). Such motions for a blanket stay are not 

deemed “discovery motions” for purposes of this Standing Order and may be filed on 

the docket for the District Judge’s consideration. 

Case 1:20-cv-21976-RNS Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 5 of 7
“Notice of Compliance” on the docket that sets forth the substance of the discovery 

matters to be heard and the status of the parties’ pre-filing efforts as to that 

issue/request. The Notice of Compliance shall include a certificate of conferral that 

fully complies with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3). 

d. 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 (torres@flsd.uscourts.gov), no later 

than noon on the Monday preceding the noticed hearing. (For example, if the dispute 

concerns interrogatories, the interrogatories at issue and the response thereto, shall 

be provided to the undersigned’s Chambers.) A proposed Order on the issues 

raised shall also be submitted together with the source materials, which 

shall set forth the specific relief requested for each request/category of 

request.

e. With respect to issues involving privilege disputes, 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 scheduled hearing may be 

deemed by the Court a waiver of the privilege absent a showing of good cause. 

4. Exceptions for written objections to the timing of depositions. If a 

motion for protective order is required for a particular dispute under Rule 26(c), Rule 

30(d)(3), or Local Rule 26.1.(g)(3), a notice of objection must be served (not filed) on 

the opposing party no later than five days after receipt of the deposition notice at 

issue. Such a notice may not be submitted on the eve of the event. The failure to 

Case 1:20-cv-21976-RNS Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 6 of 7
timely preserve an objection as per this Order may be deemed a waiver. But if a good 

faith deposition scheduling dispute arises prior to a deposition, the service of the 

written notice of objections, 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(h). 

If the parties do not thereafter reach agreement to resolve the dispute, the objecting 

party shall schedule the matter at the next available discovery calendar. 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 may be sanctioned appropriately. Consistent with 

paragraph 1.e above, any objections to the scope of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice 

shall only be adjudicate after the taking of the deposition.

5. 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 20th day of 

May, 2020

 /s/ Edwin G. Torres 

EDWIN G. TORRES 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-21976-RNS Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 7 of 7