UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-22427-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED 

AT 900 BISCAYNE BLVD UNIT 

#6107, MIAMI, FLORIDA 

33132,

Defendant In Rem.

/

ORDER OF REFERRAL AND

ORDER REGARDING COURT PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the filing of the Complaint. The Court 

has reviewed the Complaint. To efficiently, expeditiously, and economically resolve this 

dispute, it is ORDERED as follows: 

I. COUNSEL TO MEET AND FILE JOINT SCHEDULING REPORT

1. Plaintiff will forward a copy of this Order to all defendants, upon notice of 

appearance of defense counsel.

2. Discovery in this case will be conducted in accordance with the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure and Southern District of Florida Local Rules (effective December 1, 

2019), except that the deadlines under Local Rules 16.1 (d), (e), (h), (j), and (k), may be 

modified by further order of the Court.

3. In addition to complying with Local Rule 7.1, any motion and accompanying 

memorandum of law will not exceed a combined length of twenty pages, all non-dispositive 

motions must be accompanied by a proposed order, and all motions, memoranda of law, 

proposed orders, and other documents created for the Court’s review will be uploaded from a 

PDF document created within MS Word (and not from a scanned PDF document). Finally, 

motions, memoranda of law, proposed orders, and other documents created for the Court’s 

review must adhere to the following specifications:

Case 1:20-cv-22427-MGC Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2021 Page 1 of 15
a. 12 pt. Calisto MT font;

b. One inch margins on all sides;

c. 1/2 inch tab setting;

d. 1.5 Line Spacing;

e. Full Justified;

f. Conforming to the exemplar order at Attachment E to this Order;

g. Filed electronically with the corresponding motion; and

h. In the case of proposed orders, e-mailed as a Microsoft Word (.doc) 

document to cooke@flsd.uscourts.gov. The subject line of the e-mail will include: (i) case 

number, (ii) case name, and (iii) docket entry number of the corresponding motion.

Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may result in the relevant motion 

being denied without prejudice.

4. Within 45 days of service upon the defendant(s), counsel will file a Joint 

Scheduling Report and Joint Proposed Scheduling Order pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(b)(2), 

with a complete service list containing the name, address, e-mail address, phone number, 

fax number, and party represented of each counsel.

5. Counsel for the parties will meet in person or telephonically for a scheduling 

conference at least 21 days prior to the date the above Joint Proposed Scheduling Order is 

due. At this conference, the parties will accomplish the following: (1) determine the 

appropriate case management track for the action pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(a)(2); (2) 

develop a case management plan which sets deadlines in compliance with paragraphs A, B, 

and C below; and (3) discuss settlement in good faith.

A. The Joint Scheduling Report will include all information required by

the eleven subsections, (A) through (K), of Local Rule 16.1(b)(2). Unilateral submissions 

are prohibited.

B. As an attachment to the parties’ Joint Scheduling Report, and in 

Compliance with Local Rule 16.1(b)(2), the parties will jointly complete Attachment A to 

this Order. The parties will insert the specific day, month and year for each listed deadline 

that applies to the parties’ case management plan. In completing Attachment A, the parties 

will take into consideration the suggested pretrial deadlines set out in Attachment B to this 

Order. If the parties agree that one or more of the proposed deadlines (such as “expert 

Case 1:20-cv-22427-MGC Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2021 Page 2 of 15
witness deadlines”) are not appropriate for this action, they may strike the language and 

omit that proposed deadline in Attachment A. The parties’ proposed dates will include: (1) 

at least 17 weeks between the deadline for all pretrial dispositive motions and the proposed 

trial date; and (2) at least five weeks between the deadline for the pretrial stipulation and 

the proposed trial date.

C. As part of the Joint Scheduling Report, the parties will jointly

complete and file with the Court the Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Election Form appended 

to this Order as Attachment C. The Court will not accept unilateral submissions in this 

regard; thus, a “Yes” should be checked only if all parties agree. If the parties consent to a 

full disposition of the case by the Magistrate Judge, including trial and entry of final 

judgment, the parties will jointly file the election form appended to this Order as Attachment 

D.

6. The Parties must jointly select a mediator certified under Local Rule 16.2(b), 

and schedule a time, date, and place for mediation. In addition, the Parties must jointly file 

a proposed order scheduling mediation. If the parties cannot agree on a mediator, they will

notify the clerk in writing as soon as possible and the Clerk will designate a certified 

mediator on a blind rotation basis. Counsels for all parties will familiarize themselves with 

and adhere to all provisions of Local Rule 16.2. The parties will complete mediation at least 

30 days prior to the calendar call.

7. The foregoing information will aid the Court in its management of this case, 

including the expeditious resolution of any discovery disputes, and help the parties focus on 

the key issues of the case at an early stage in the proceedings. Accordingly, failure of the 

parties to file a joint scheduling report may result in dismissal, default, or the imposition 

of other sanctions, including attorney’s fees and costs.

Case 1:20-cv-22427-MGC Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2021 Page 3 of 15
II. REFERRAL OF CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case is REFERRED to the Honorable Jonathan Goodman, United States 

Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Florida, for appropriate resolution of all nondispositive pretrial matters, as well as motions for attorney’s fees and costs and motions for 

sanctions, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). Motions in Limine and any 

motion affecting deadlines set by the Court's Scheduling Order are excluded from this referral, 

unless specifically referred by separate order.

The Parties are notified that all subsequent pleadings bearing on matters referred to 

the Magistrate Judge will be so designated by setting forth beneath the case number the 

identity of the Magistrate Judge to which the matter has been referred and the date of the 

Order of Reference. Parties must also abide by Magistrate Judge Goodman’s Discovery 

Procedures Order appended as Attachment F to this Order.

III. NOTICE OF JOINT MOTIONS

The parties are hereby notified that multiple Plaintiffs or Defendants will file joint 

dispositive motions with co-parties unless there are clear conflicts of positions or grounds for 

relief. 

DONE and ORDERED in chambers, Miami, Florida, this 24th day of February 

2021.

Copies furnished to: 

Jonathan Goodman, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Counsel of record

Case 1:20-cv-22427-MGC Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2021 Page 4 of 15
Attachment A: Pretrial Deadlines, Pretrial Conference and Trial Date

___________ Joinder of parties and claims, and amendment of pleadings.

(INSERT DATES)

____________ Parties will furnish opposing counsel with a written list containing the names and addresses of all 

fact witnesses intended to be called at trial and only those witnesses listed will be permitted to testify unless good cause 

is shown and there is no prejudice to opposing party. The parties are under a continuing obligation to supplement 

discovery responses within ten days of receipt or other notice of new or revised information.

____________ All fact discovery must be completed. 

____________ Plaintiff must furnish expert witness list to the Defendant, along with the summaries/reports 

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), and only those expert witnesses will be permitted to testify. Within the fourteenday period thereafter, Plaintiff will make its experts available for deposition by Defendant.

____________ All dispositive and other pretrial motions not explicitly excluded by Local Rule 7.1(a)(1), and 

accompanying memoranda of law must be filed. A minimum of 17 weeks is required for the Court to review dispositive 

motions prior to filing of the joint pretrial stipulation. If no dispositive motions will be filed, clearly note this fact in the 

Joint Scheduling Report.

____________ Defendant must furnish expert witness list to the Plaintiff along with the summaries/reports 

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), and only those expert witnesses will be permitted to testify. Within the fourteenday period thereafter, Defendant will make its experts available for deposition by Plaintiff. 

____________ All expert discovery must be completed. 

____________ All Daubert and Markman motions and accompanying memoranda of law must be filed. If a 

Daubert or Markman hearing is necessary, add that as an additional deadline at the bottom of Attachment A.

____________ Mediation must be completed. (The parties should select the earliest date to maximize resolution 

of the case in a manner that promotes client and judicial economy.)

____________ (a) Joint pretrial stipulation must be filed pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(e). The pretrial stipulation 

will include Plaintiff’s non-binding breakdown of damages with corresponding amounts; the witness lists will be pared 

down to those witnesses the parties actually intend to call at trial; and the exhibit lists will identify the witness 

introducing each exhibit. The parties will meet at least one month prior to the deadline for filing the pretrial stipulation 

to confer on the preparation of that stipulation. The Court will not accept unilateral pretrial stipulations, and will strike, 

sua sponte, any such submissions; and

(b) Joint Summary of Respective Motions in Limine must be filed. The Summary will contain a cover page providing 

the style of the case and an index of the motions in limine. The Summary will also include for each evidentiary issue: (i) 

a one page motion identifying the evidence sought to be precluded at trial and citing legal authority supporting 

exclusion; and (ii) a one page response to the motion providing a statement of the purpose for which the challenged 

evidence would be offered and citing legal authority in support of admission of the challenged evidence. The parties will

work together to prepare the Summary. Prior to submission of the Summary, the parties are encouraged to resolve 

evidentiary issues through stipulation.

____________ Final proposed jury instructions (for jury trial) or findings of fact and conclusions of law (for 

bench trial) must be submitted. (A courtesy copy will be submitted to chambers at cooke@flsd.uscourts.gov, in Microsoft Word 

format). Each party’s trial witness list, with one-sentence synopsis and time needed for direct and cross examination; 

proposed voir dire questions; and deposition designations.

____________ Trial Date.

Case 1:20-cv-22427-MGC Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2021 Page 5 of 15
Attachment B: Suggested Pretrial Deadlines

31 weeks prior to 

pretrial stipulation

Joinder of parties and claims, and amendment of pleadings.

21 weeks prior to 

pretrial stipulation

Parties will furnish opposing counsel with a written list containing the names and addresses of 

all fact witnesses intended to be called at trial and only those witnesses listed will be permitted 

to testify.

18 weeks prior to 

pretrial stipulation

All fact discovery must be completed.

16 weeks prior to 

pretrial stipulation

Plaintiff must furnish expert witness list to the Defendant, along with the summaries/reports 

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), and only those expert witnesses will be permitted to 

testify. Within the fourteen-day period thereafter, Plaintiff will make its experts available for 

deposition by Defendant.

17 weeks prior to 

pretrial stipulation

All dispositive pretrial motions and memoranda of law must be filed. A minimum of 17 weeks

is required for the Court to review dispositive motion prior to filing of the joint pretrial 

stipulation. If no dispositive motions will be filed, clearly note this fact in the Joint Scheduling 

Report.

14 weeks prior to 

pretrial stipulation

Defendant must furnish expert witness list to the Plaintiff along with the summaries/reports 

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), and only those expert witnesses will be permitted to 

testify. Within the fourteen-day period thereafter, Defendant will make its experts available for 

deposition by Plaintiff.

12 weeks prior to 

pretrial stipulation

All expert discovery must be completed. If a Daubert or Markman hearing may be necessary, 

the parties are to add that as an additional deadline at the bottom of attachment A. 

11 weeks prior to 

pretrial stipulation

All Daubert and Markman motions and accompanying memoranda of law must be filed. If a 

Daubert or Markman hearing is necessary, the parties are to add that as an additional deadline 

at the bottom of attachment A.

10 weeks prior to 

pretrial stipulation

Mediation must be completed. (The parties should select the earliest date to maximize 

resolution of the case in a manner that promotes client and judicial economy.)

5 weeks prior to the 

Friday before trial 

period

(a) Joint pretrial stipulation must be filed pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(e). The pretrial 

stipulation will include Plaintiff’s non-binding breakdown of damages with corresponding 

amounts and other relief sought. The parties will meet at least one month prior to the deadline 

for filing the pretrial stipulation to confer on the preparation of that stipulation. The Court will 

not accept unilateral pretrial stipulations, and will strike, sua sponte, any such submissions; and

(b) Joint Summary of Respective Motions in Limine must be filed. The Summary will contain 

a cover page providing the style of the case and an index of the motions in limine. The 

Summary will also include for each evidentiary issue: (i) a one page motion identifying the 

evidence sought to be precluded at trial and citing legal authority supporting exclusion; and 

(ii) a one page response to the motion providing a statement of the purpose for which the 

challenged evidence would be offered and citing legal authority in support of admission of the 

challenged evidence. The parties will work together to prepare the Summary. Prior to 

submission of the Summary, the parties are encouraged to resolve evidentiary issues through 

stipulation.

Friday before Calendar 

Call

Final proposed jury instructions (for jury trial) or findings of fact and conclusions of law (for 

bench trial) must be submitted. (A courtesy copy will be submitted to chambers at

cooke@flsd.uscourts.gov, in Microsoft Word format). Each party’s trial witness list, proposed voir 

dire questions, and deposition designations.

Case 1:20-cv-22427-MGC Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2021 Page 6 of 15
Attachment C: Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Election Form

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-22427-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 

900 BISCAYNE BLVD UNIT #6107, 

MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132,

Defendant In Rem.

/

ELECTION TO JURISDICTION BY A UNITED STATES

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FINAL DISPOSITION OF MOTIONS

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the undersigned parties to the 

above-captioned civil matter hereby jointly and voluntarily elect to have a United States 

Magistrate Judge decide the following motions and issue a final order or judgment with respect 

thereto:

1. Motions for Costs Yes _____ No _____

2. Motions for Attorney’s Fees Yes _____ No _____

3. Motions for Sanctions Yes _____ No _____

____________ ________________________________________

(Date) (Signature-Plaintiff’s Counsel)

__________ ________________________________________

(Date) (Signature-Defendant’s Counsel)

Case 1:20-cv-22427-MGC Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2021 Page 7 of 15
Attachment D: Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Election Form

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-22427-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 

900 BISCAYNE BLVD UNIT #6107, 

MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132,

Defendant In Rem.

/

ELECTION TO JURISDICTION BY 

A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR TRIAL

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the undersigned parties to the 

above-captioned civil matter hereby jointly and voluntarily elect to have a United States 

Magistrate Judge conduct all further proceedings in the case, including trial, and entry of final 

judgment with respect thereto.

___________ _________________________________

(Date) (Signature-Plaintiff’s Counsel)

___________ _________________________________

(Date) (Signature-Defendant’s Counsel)

Case 1:20-cv-22427-MGC Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2021 Page 8 of 15
Attachment E: Exemplar Order

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-22427-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED 

AT 900 BISCAYNE BLVD UNIT 

#6107, MIAMI, FLORIDA 

33132,

Defendant In Rem.

/

TITLE OF ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the [Plaintiff/Defendant, insert name(s),] 

Motion for [insert motion title], [ECF No. (insert docket entry number)], filed [insert date].

The Court, having reviewed the Motion and being fully advised in the premises, 

hereby ORDERS and ADJUDGES as follows:

[Insert text of proposed judgment and order].

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Miami, Florida, this day of [insert month] 

20__.

___________________________________

MARCIA G. COOKE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

Jonathan Goodman, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Counsel of record

Case 1:20-cv-22427-MGC Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2021 Page 9 of 15
Attachment F

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-22427-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED 

AT 900 BISCAYNE BLVD UNIT 

#6107, MIAMI, FLORIDA 

33132,

Defendant In Rem.

/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE GOODMAN’S DISCOVERY PROCEDURES ORDER

The following discovery procedures apply to all civil cases in which discovery is 

referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman and where Judge Goodman 

is presiding over a case with full consent.

OVERALL STATEMENT

The Court designed these procedures to help the Parties and the Court work together

to timely resolve discovery disputes without undue delay and unnecessary expense. The 

procedures are designed to (1) promote the timely internal resolution of discovery disputes 

by the parties themselves so that they have no need to seek judicial intervention, (2) help the 

parties obtain timely rulings to the extent they cannot on their own resolve their discovery 

disputes, (3) streamline the process of resolving discovery disputes by eliminating 

unnecessary motion practice, and (4) assist the Court by prohibiting the submission of 

motions and memoranda which are unnecessary, overly long or both.

MEET AND CONFER

Counsel must actually confer (in person or via telephone) and engage in reasonable 

compromise in a genuine effort to resolve their discovery disputes before filing a notice of a 

discovery hearing. In other words, there must be an actual conversation before a discovery 

hearing notice is filed. If counsel refuses to participate in a conversation, then the party 

seeking to a discovery hearing will so state in the required certificate of conference and 

outline the efforts made to have a conversation. 

Case 1:20-cv-22427-MGC Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2021 Page 10 of 15
The Court may impose sanctions, monetary or otherwise, if it determines discovery 

is being improperly sought, is being withheld in bad faith or if a party fails to confer in good 

faith. Sending an email or telefax to opposing counsel with a demand that a discovery 

response or position be provided on the same day will rarely, if ever, be deemed a good faith 

effort to confer before filing a discovery hearing notice.

DISCOVERY CALENDAR AND NO DISCOVERY MOTIONS

No written discovery motions, including motions to compel, for protective order, or 

related motions for sanctions will be filed unless specifically authorized by the Court.1

Similarly, the parties may not submit legal memoranda concerning a discovery hearing 

unless the Undersigned specifically authorizes it. This procedure is intended to minimize the 

need for discovery motions. The Court will strike any unauthorized discovery motions and 

memoranda.

If, after conferring, the parties are unable to resolve their discovery disputes without 

Court intervention, then the Court holds a regular discovery calendar every Friday 

afternoon. The party seeking the discovery hearing will contact Chambers at (305) 523-5720 

to place the matter on the next available discovery calendar. That party will be provided 

with available dates and will then confer with opposing counsel and confirm his or her 

availability for the discovery calendar. Once opposing counsel has confirmed availability, 

the party seeking the hearing will contact Chambers again to finalize the hearing date. 

[NOTE: The longer a party waits to contact Chambers to follow through after being 

provided with available times, the more likely it is that the hearing date will no longer be 

available. Therefore, the Court encourages parties seeking discovery hearings to follow 

through on a timely basis and confirm the hearing date.].

On the same day that Chambers confirms that the matter is being placed on the 

discovery calendar, the party seeking the discovery hearing will provide notice to all relevant 

parties by filing a Notice of Hearing and serving a copy on opposing counsel through the 

Court’s electronic docketing system. The Notice of Hearing will briefly and succinctly

identify the substance of the discovery matter to be heard. (For example, “The Parties 

dispute the appropriate time frame for Plaintiff’s Interrogatory Nos. 1, 4-7, and 10” or “The 

Parties disagree about whether Defendant produced an adequate 30(b)(6) witness on the 

topics listed in the notice.”) Ordinarily, no more than 20 minutes per side will be permitted. 

The party scheduling the hearing will include in this Notice of Hearing a certificate of 

good faith that complies with Southern District of Florida Local Rule 7.1(a)(3). The 

Court will strike hearing notices which do not include a sufficient local rule certificate.

1 Nevertheless, if the parties wish to submit an agreed-upon discovery order, such as a 

standard confidentiality-type of protective order, then they will (1) file a Notice of Proposed 

Stipulated Order with the proposed order attached to the notice and (2) submit a Wordversion courtesy copy to the Undersigned’s CM/ECF mailbox 

(goodman@flsd.uscourts.gov). This Order does not prohibit that submission because there 

is not a discovery dispute; instead, there is an agreement about a discovery issue.

Case 1:20-cv-22427-MGC Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2021 Page 11 of 15
The party who scheduled the discovery hearing will provide the Court a copy of all 

source materials relevant to the discovery dispute, via hand-delivery or through a document 

that is emailed to the CM/ECF mailbox (goodman@flsd.uscourts.gov) on the date that the 

Notice of Hearing is filed. (For example, if the dispute concerns interrogatories, then the 

interrogatories at issue and the responses thereto, will be provided.) Source material is the 

actual discovery at issue. Source material is not memoranda or letters to the Court which 

are, for all intents and purposes, a mini-brief. The opposing party may submit additional 

source material to the CM/ECF mailbox, as well.

Neither the Notice of Hearing nor the source materials should be used as a de facto 

strategy to submit a memorandum. For example, sending multi-page, rhetoric-filled letters 

to the Court or filing argument-riddled notices are specifically prohibited. The Court will 

strike letters, notices, and exhibits which are designed to circumvent the no motion/no 

memoranda policy. 

If one or more of the parties believe in good faith that the discovery dispute is not a 

routine, garden-variety dispute and needs specialized attention, then the parties may include 

a to-the-point, no-more-than-one-paragraph explanation in the Notice of Hearing, to flag the 

specific issues. In addition, the parties may submit a “notice of authorities,” which will list 

only the authorities, but which will not contain argument or be a disguised memorandum. 

At most, the list of authorities may contain a one-sentence, objective summary of the 

relevant holding of each case or authority. The Court will strike any non-compliant notice of 

authorities.

For those discovery disputes which are particularly complex (and there are not many 

of those) and which a party believes will require briefing, a motion for leave to file a 

discovery motion or memoranda may be filed. The motion should briefly explain the 

extraordinary need, but the actual discovery motion or memorandum should not be 

attached or filed unless the Court grants the motion seeking leave. The Court anticipates 

that the need for motions and/or memoranda will arise only rarely.

The following topics are illustrations of discovery disputes which are usually not rare 

enough to bypass the standard no-motion policy and therefore would not ordinarily justify a 

motion for leave to file a discovery motion in a specific case absent extraordinary 

circumstances: (1) whether a party may take more than 10 depositions in the absence of 

consent; (2) whether a deposition may last more than 7 hours; (3) how a seven-hour 

deposition is allocated among the parties; (4) whether a 30(b)(6) witness was prepared to 

provide binding testimony on all the topics listed in the notice; (5) whether a noticed 

deposition is an “apex” deposition, and, if so, whether it will be permitted; (6) whether a 

party needs to arrange for a treating doctor to provide an expert witness report or if the party 

needs to make other written disclosures if the physician is expected to testify about the cause 

of an injury; (7) squabbles over the location of a deposition; (8) whether an attorney 

improperly instructed a deponent to not answer certain questions; (9) whether an attorney 

was improperly coaching a deponent; (10) whether a party or attorney may pay any money 

to a deponent or trial witness other than a standard witness fee, and, if so, under what 

circumstances and in what amounts; (11) whether a party may take “early” discovery; (12) 

Case 1:20-cv-22427-MGC Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2021 Page 12 of 15
whether a party exceeded the number of permissible interrogatories (and how should the 

sub-parts be counted); (13) whether an interrogatory answer is adequate or whether better 

answers are required; and (14) whether a party engaged in a strategically unfair “document 

dump” which makes it difficult for a party to know which documents are responsive to a 

request. These are all routine discovery disputes which require the submission of only the 

Notice of Hearing, source material and, at most, an argument-free list of authorities.

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.

These procedures do not relieve parties from the requirements of any Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure or Local Rules, except as noted above.

PRE-HEARING DISCUSSIONS

The mere fact that the Court has scheduled a discovery hearing/conference does 

not mean that the parties should no longer try to resolve the dispute. To the contrary, the 

parties are encouraged to continually pursue settlement of disputed discovery matters. If 

those efforts are successful, then counsel should contact Chambers as soon as practicable so 

that the hearing can be timely canceled. Alternatively, if the parties resolve some, but not 

all, of their issues before the hearing, then counsel will also timely contact Chambers and 

provide notice about those issues which are no longer in dispute (so that the Court and its 

staff do not unnecessarily work on matters no longer in dispute). 

EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES

The Court reminds the parties and counsel that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

37(a)(5) requires the Court to award expenses, including fees, unless an exception (such as 

the existence of a substantially justified, albeit losing, discovery position) applies to the 

discovery dispute and ruling.

NO BOILERPLATE DISCOVERY OBJECTIONS

“Vague, Overly Broad and Unduly Burdensome”

Parties will not make conclusory boilerplate objections. Such objections do not 

comply with Local Rule 26.1(e)(2)(A), which provides that, “[w]here an objection is made 

to any interrogatory or sub-part thereof or to any production request under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 34, the objection will state with specificity all grounds.” Blanket, 

unsupported objections that a discovery request is “vague, overly broad, or unduly 

burdensome” are, by themselves, meaningless, and the Court will disregard such objections. 

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) (the 

ground for objecting to an interrogatory “must be stated with specificity”); Josephs v. Harris 

Case 1:20-cv-22427-MGC Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2021 Page 13 of 15
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.”). 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”

An objection that a discovery request is irrelevant or “not reasonably calculated to 

lead to admissible evidence” is an outdated type of objection, as that language no longer 

defines the scope of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). The current 

version defines the scope of discovery as being “nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 

party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case” -- and then lists several 

factors to analyze. The Court reminds the parties that the Federal Rules provide that 

information within this scope of discovery “need not be admissible in evidence” to be 

discoverable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); S. D. Fla. L. R. 26.1(g)(3)(A); Oppenheimer Fund, 

Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351-52 (1978).

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 responding party fully answered. Moreover, the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure now specifically prohibit that practice (which was deemed 

inappropriate by many judges and commentators). For example, Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 34(b)(2)(C) now provides that an objection to a request for documents “must 

state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection.” In 

addition, it also says that “an objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit 

inspection of the rest.” Therefore, counsel should specifically state whether the responding 

party is fully answering or responding to a request and, if not, specifically identify the 

categories of information that have been withheld on an objection-by-objection basis.

Objections Based upon Privilege

Generalized objections asserting attorney-client privilege or the work product 

doctrine also do not comply with the Local Rules. S. D. Fla. L. R. 26.1(e)(2)(B) requires 

that objections based upon privilege identify the specific nature of the privilege being 

asserted, as well as identify details such as the nature and subject matter of the 

communication at issue, the sender and receiver of the communication and their 

relationship to each other. Parties must 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.” The Local Rule also requires the preparation of a privilege 

log except for “communications between a party and its counsel after commencement of the 

action and work product material created after commencement of the action.”

Case 1:20-cv-22427-MGC Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2021 Page 14 of 15
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, in Miami, Florida, this 24th day of

February 2021.

Copies Furnished to:

The Honorable Marcia G. Cooke

All counsel of record

Case 1:20-cv-22427-MGC Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/24/2021 Page 15 of 15