EXHIBIT 3 

 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 1 of 8
Shanti Sadtler Conway 

To Call Writer Directly: 

+1 212 446 5933 

shanti.conway@kirkland.com 

601 Lexington Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

United States 

+1 212 446 4800 

www.kirkland.com 

Facsimile: 

+1 212 446 4900 

Beijing Boston Chicago Dallas Hong Kong Houston London Los Angeles Munich Palo Alto Paris San Francisco Shanghai Washington, D.C. 

August 20, 2020 

Via Electronic Mail 

Brian R. Gilchrist 

Allen, Dyer, Doppelt + Gilchrist, PA 

255 South Orange Avenue 

Suite 1401 

Orlando, Florida 32801 

Re: SH Group Global IP Holdings L.L.C. v. 2399 Collins Avenue 

Condominium Association, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-22423-UU 

Dear Brian: 

We write regarding Defendants 2399 Collins Avenue Condominium Association, Inc. 

(the “Association”) and John P. Bostany’s (“Bostany”) (collectively, “Defendants’) respective 

responses, dated August 10, 2020 (“Responses”), to SH Group Global IP Holdings, L.L.C.’s 

(“SH Group”) First Set of Requests for Admission (“RFAs”), First Set of Requests for 

Production (“RFPs”), and First Set of Interrogatories (“Interrogatories”) (collectively, the 

“Requests”) in the above-referenced action. As detailed below, Defendants’ Responses contain 

improper objections and insufficient responses. Accordingly, please serve amended Responses 

by August 27, 2020 at 12:00 pm EST, consistent with Defendants’ obligations under the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Southern 

District of Florida. If Defendants intend to refuse to appropriately supplement any of the 

Responses, please let me know when you are available for a meet and confer this week or early 

next week. 

I. DEFENDANTS’ “GENERAL OBJECTIONS” TO THE INTERROGATORIES 

ARE IMPROPER. 

First, Defendants propound and appear to rely on a number of “General Objections” in 

response to SH Group’s First Set of Interrogatories. In a number of these objections, Defendants 

object to all of the Interrogatories without specifying to which Interrogatory, if any, the objection 

actually applies. These boilerplate general objections are highly disfavored in this District and 

Defendants’ reliance thereupon is improper. See Chavez v. Mercantil Commercebank, N.A., No. 

10- 23244-CIV-Ungaro/Simonton, 2011 WL 1135005, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2011) 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 2 of 8
Brian R. Gilchrist 

August 20, 2020 

Page 2 

(Simonton, J.) (overruling general objections and stating that “[n]onspecific, boilerplate 

objections do not comply with U.S. Southern District of Florida Local Rule 26.1(g)(3)(A),1

which provides, ‘Where an objection is made to any interrogatory or subpart thereof or to any 

production request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, the objection shall state with 

specificity all grounds’”); see also Argiro v. Lan Airlines, No. 13-61848-CIV, 2013 WL 

12120549, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2013) (Snow, J.) (“the parties shall not make nonspecific, 

boilerplate objections”). Defendants’ reference to these general objections at the beginning of 

every Interrogatory Response, and statement that their responses are “[s]ubject to and without 

waiving such objections,” makes it unclear as to what extent, if any, Defendants’ Responses are 

limited by any particular objection. (See generally Association’s Responses to the First Set of 

Interrogatories; Bostany’s Responses to the First Set of Interrogatories.) The Southern District 

of Florida has expressly condemned this form of discovery response: 

Parties shall not recite 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 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. 

Guzman v. Irmadan, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 399, 401 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (Brown, J.); Cornette v. I.C. Sys., 

Inc., No. 16-24454-CIV, 2017 WL 10398533, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 7, 2017) (Torres, J.) (“the 

oft-used ‘boilerplate objections’ and ‘generalized responses, [] are improper and discouraged”); 

UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Bounty Gain Enters., Inc., No. 14-81603-CIV, 2016 WL 446556, at *3 

(S.D. Fla. Feb. 2, 2016) (Matthewman, J.) (“the ‘answer + objection’ formula is not an 

acceptable form for an answer to an interrogatory” as the objections “preserve nothing, constitute 

a waste of time and effort of the parties and the Court, and leave [the requesting party] uncertain 

as to whether the Interrogatories have been fully answered”) 

Accordingly, SH Group requests that the Defendants amend their respective Responses to 

the Interrogatories to eliminate these broad, boilerplate “General Objections” and purported 

reliance thereon, and clarify to what extent Defendants are refusing to respond to each 

Interrogatory and on what basis. 

 

1 Local Rule 26.1(g)(3)(A) subsequently was renumbered and is now Local Rule 26.1(e)(2)(A).

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 3 of 8
Brian R. Gilchrist 

August 20, 2020 

Page 3 

II. DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE RFAS AS CALLING FOR LEGAL 

CONCLUSIONS ARE IMPROPER. 

Second, in response to numerous of the RFAs, Defendants object that the RFAs seek a 

“legal conclusion.” Defendants appear to rely on such objections in an improper attempt to 

avoid admitting 50 RFAs. (See Association’s Responses to RFA Nos. 2–3, 18–38, 89–90; 

Bostany’s Responses to RFA Nos. 4, 6, 21–41, 93–94.) 

Such objections and responses are contrary to the Federal Rules and case law. Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(1)(A) specifically permits requests for admission of “facts, the 

application of law to fact, or opinions about either.” Federal Rule 36 also clearly states that “[a] 

party must not object solely on the ground that the request presents a genuine issue for trial.” As 

SH Group’s requests do not seek bare legal conclusions and “statements or opinions of fact or of 

the application of law to fact are appropriate responses to admissions requests under Rule 36,” 

Defendants’ objections are baseless. Treister v. PNC Bank, No. 05-23207-CIV, 2007 WL 

521935, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 15, 2007) (overruling an objection to an RFA stating that the 

request “calls for a legal conclusion”). 

For example, RFA No. 2 to the Association asked: “Admit that the ASSOCIATION did 

not use the ASSOCIATION’S CLAIMED MARK in U.S. commerce prior to December 31, 

2018.” Similarly, RFA No. 6 to Bostany asked: “Admit that SH GROUP used the term ‘1’ in 

U.S. commerce, including but not limited to in SH GROUP’S MARKS, prior to the 

ASSOCIATION’s first use of the ASSOCIATION’S CLAIMED MARK.” In response to each 

RFA, Defendants state that they “object[] to this request on the ground that the request seeks 

admission of a legal conclusion regarding an ultimate issue in the case” and proceede to deny the 

request. (See also Association’s Responses to RFA Nos 3, 18–38, 89–90; Bostany’s Responses 

to RFA Nos. 4, 21–41, 93–94.) Because the RFAs do not require Defendants to admit pure 

questions of law, as opposed to the application of facts to the law or simply facts such as which 

party used a term first, Defendants’ objections and denials based thereon are improper. 

Accordingly, SH Group requests that Defendants withdraw their misplaced objections 

and substantively answer RFA Nos. 2–3, 18–38, 89–90 to the Association, and RFA Nos. 4, 6, 

21–41, 93–94 to Bostany. 

III. DEFENDANTS FAIL TO PROVIDE SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSES TO 

NUMEROUS REQUESTS. 

Third, in an apparent attempt to avoid responding to SH Group’s Requests, Defendants 

fail to provide substantive answers. Defendants have no adequate basis for such refusals. 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 4 of 8
Brian R. Gilchrist 

August 20, 2020 

Page 4 

(a) Bostany’s Responses 

Bostany’s responses to SH Group’s Interrogatories and RFPs contain multiple instances 

where he provides no substantive response to the Requests. (See Bostany’s Responses to 

Interrogatory No. 2; Bostany’s Responses to RFP Nos. 6–7, 13–15, 33, 36, 41.) 

In response to Interrogatory No. 2, Bostany presents a number of objections (including 

his “General Objections”) but fails to provide any substantive response. Interrogatory No. 2 

requests: “IDENTIFY all PERSON(S) with knowledge of YOUR contractual obligations under 

each of the AGREEMENTS and DESCRIBE the subject matter of each PERSON’s knowledge, 

including the relevant AGREEMENT.” In response, Bostany simply objects and seems to 

complain that answering the Interrogatory would require listing a lot of people, stating: “The 

interrogatory as written presumably requests that Bostany identify any and all who have 

knowledge of any of the agreements referenced by Plaintiff including at least all condominium 

unit owners who signed the same agreements.” That is not a basis to not respond. 

Similarly, in response to numerous RFPs, Bostany propounds a laundry list of objections 

without providing a substantive response indicating whether or not he will produce responsive 

documents. (See Bostany’s Responses to RFP Nos. 6–7, 13–15, 33, 36, 41.) For example, RFP 

No. 7 requests: “DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the founding or formation of the 

ASSOCIATION and the scope of its authority.” In response, Bostany makes objections but does 

not indicate whether he will produce documents. A refusal to produce documents within his 

possession, custody, or control would be improper. Accordingly, SH Group requests that 

Bostany amend his responses to provide substantive responses to Interrogatory No. 2 and to 

confirm that he will search for and produce documents responsive to RFP Nos. 6–7, 13–15, 33, 

36, and 41. 

(b) The Association’s Responses 

The Association’s Responses to SH Group’s Interrogatories, RFPs, and RFAs also 

contain many instances where the Association does not substantively respond, but rather 

provides a list of objections and an attempt to defer responses to publically available documents. 

(See Association’s Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3–5, 7; Association’s Responses to RFP Nos. 

45–46; Associations Responses to RFA Nos. 4–17.) 

 The Association’s Responses to SH Group’s Interrogatories contain multiple instances in 

which the Association merely responds by conclusorily mentioning filings with the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), without responding to the Interrogatories or even 

indicating to which particular filings the Association is referring. (See Association’s 

Interrogatory Nos. 3–5, 7.) These Interrogatories request that the Association either identify or 

describe facts or instances beyond the information contained in the USPTO’s records to which 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 5 of 8
Brian R. Gilchrist 

August 20, 2020 

Page 5 

the Association vaguely refers. For example, Interrogatory No. 3 asks: “DESCRIBE any goods 

and services that the ASSOCIATION has offered under the ASSOCIATION’S CLAIMED 

MARK.” The Association’s response does nothing to describe the goods and services, but rather 

states: “All of the Association’s uses of the mark 1 HOMES on goods and services are set forth 

pursuant to Section 1(a) of the Lanham Act in applications on file with the United States Patent 

and Trademark Office.” The Association does not specify any goods or services, or even to 

which applications it refers. 

Similarly, the Association provides no substantive response as to 14 of the RFAs, stating 

merely that the USPTO’s records “speak for themselves.” (See Association’s Responses to RFA 

Nos. 4–17.) For example, SH Group’s RFA No. 4 asks: “Admit that the USPTO approved for 

registration on the Principal Register SH GROUP’S REGISTERED MARKS without requiring 

SH GROUP to show that SH GROUP’S MARKS had acquired distinctiveness.” The 

Association’s response denies sufficient knowledge to admit or deny, and therefore denies the 

RFA, and then proceeds to state that the “USPTO trademark application records . . . speak for 

themselves.” The Association cannot avoid admitting these properly served RFAs. Rather, 

Federal Rule 36 requires that an answering party “ma[k]e reasonable inquiry” in investigating an 

RFA, and that it “assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny 

only if the party states that it has made a reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or 

can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny” (emphasis added). Yet, it appears 

that the Association has done nothing to investigate. 

Moreover, in response to RFP Nos. 45 and 46, the Association merely makes objections, 

without stating whether it will search for and produce responsive documents. (See Association’s 

Responses to RFP Nos. 45–46.) These RFPs seek “DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the 

ASSOCIATION’s document retention policies and practices” as well as “DOCUMENTS 

sufficient to show the ASSOCIATION’S document retention, collection, and production efforts 

in connection with this LITIGATION.” The Association’s Responses to these RFPs merely 

state: “The Association objects to the request as unduly burdensome as such information is not 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information.” But the information is 

highly relevant as documents sufficient to show the Association’s document retention policies 

and practices generally, as well as in this litigation, will help determine whether the Association 

has adequately met its discovery obligations. Federal Rule 26 expressly provides for the 

permissible discovery of the “custody” of “any documents or other tangible things.” See also In 

re Takata Airbag Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 15-02599-MD-MORENO, 2017 WL 8812734, at *6 

(S.D. Fla. July 5, 2017), report & recommendation adopted, No. 14-24009-CV, 2018 WL 

1859338 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2018) (granting motion to compel production of defendant’s 

document retention policies). 

Accordingly, SH Group requests that the Association amend its responses to 

Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7; RFP Nos. 45–46; and RFA Nos. 4–17. 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 6 of 8
Brian R. Gilchrist 

August 20, 2020 

Page 6 

IV. DEFENDANTS’ INTERROGATORY RESPONSES THAT VAGUELY REFER 

TO DOCKET ENTRIES ARE IMPROPER. 

Defendants also attempt to avoid providing substantive responses to SH Group’s 

Interrogatories by vaguely citing to previously filed docket entries in this litigation. (See

Association’s Interrogatory Responses Nos. 8–9; Bostany’s Interrogatory Response No. 6.) Such 

responses are inadequate and leave SH Group to guess as to what Defendants are referring. 

For instance, Interrogatory No. 6 to Bostany asks: “STATE YOUR position, including 

the complete factual and legal basis for such position, regarding whether YOU have breached 

each of the AGREEMENTS.” In response, Bostany sets forth various “General Objections” and 

then states that his “position is presented in Section II(A) and II(C) of Defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss (D.E. 22) and is incorporated herein by reference.” Such a response is deficient. It is 

not clear what in Sections II(A) and II(C) of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Bostany is relying 

on, and those sections do not deal with whether Bostany breached the agreements. Rather, they 

address Bostany’s arguments that he cannot be sued for breach of contract or trademark 

infringement given his role with the Association. 

The Association’s responses to Interrogatory Nos. 8–9 also are inadequate. Interrogatory 

No. 8 asks: “STATE the ASSOCIATION’s position, including the complete factual and legal 

basis for such position, regarding whether the AGREEMENTS in any way limit the 

ASSOCIATION’s ability to challenge the validity of SH GROUP’S MARKS and assert 

ownership over the ASSOCIATION’S CLAIMED MARK.” Interrogatory No. 9 asks: “STATE 

the ASSOCIATION’s position, including the complete factual and legal basis for such position, 

regarding whether the AGREEMENTS prevent or limit the ASSOCIATION’s use of SH 

GROUP’S MARKS or the ASSOCIATION’S CLAIMED MARK.” In response, the Association 

states that its “position is presented in Section II(A) of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (D.E. 22) 

and is incorporated herein by reference.” Section II(A) of the Motion to Dismiss primarily 

relates to the breach of contract claims against Bostany. It does not discuss the Association’s 

“ability to challenge the validity of SH GROUP’S MARKS and assert ownership over the 

ASSOCIATION’S CLAIMED MARK,” nor does it discuss “whether the AGREEMENTS 

prevent or limit the ASSOCIATION’s use of SH GROUP’S MARKS or the ASSOCIATION’S 

CLAIMED MARK.” 

Accordingly, SH Group requests that Defendants correct these deficiencies and amend 

Bostany’s Responses to Interrogatory No. 6 and the Association’s Responses to Interrogatory 

Nos. 8 and 9 to substantively respond. 

* * * 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 7 of 8
Brian R. Gilchrist 

August 20, 2020 

Page 7 

SH Group requests that Defendants correct the above-discussed deficiencies and serve 

amended Responses by August 27, 2020 at 12:00 pm EST. If Defendants intend to refuse to 

amend their Responses, then please let me know when you are available for a meet and confer 

this week or early next week. 

The foregoing is not intended to be a full and complete recitation of SH Group’s position 

with respect to any discovery issues, and SH Group hereby expressly reserves, and does not 

waive, all of its rights and remedies, including pursuant to Federal Rules 37(c) and (d), in 

connection with these issues. 

Sincerely,

Shanti Sadtler Conway 

cc: All counsel of record 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 8 of 8