UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SO UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLO RIDA

CaseNo.20-21254-CIV-BLO OM /LOUIS

SECURITIESAND EXCHANGE COM M ISSION ,

Plaintiff,

JUSTIN W .KEENER,W b/aJM lFinancial,

Defendant.

/

GENERAL O RDER ON DISCOVERY OBJECTIONS AND PRO CEDURES

Thism atterisbeforethe Courtsua sponte.The Honorable Beth Bloom,United States

DistrictJudge,hasreferred thiscaseto the undersigned United StatesM agistrate Judgef0ra11

discoverymaters(ECFNo.23).Inordertoefficientlyresolvediscoverydisputes,thepartiesare

herebynotifiedthatthefollowingrulesapplytodiscoveryobjectionsbeforethisCourt.

1. Vague,OverlyBroad and UndulyBurdensom e

Partiesshalnotmakenonspecificboilerplateobjections.Suchobjectionsdonotcomply

withLocalRule26.1(e)(2)(A),whichprovidesthat,whenanobjectionismadetoanyinterrogatory

orsub-partthereoforto any docum entrequestunderFederalRule ofCivilProcedure 34,the

objectionshalstatewithspecificitya11grounds.Blanket,unsupportedobjectionsthatadiscovely

requestisivague,overlybroad,orunduly burdensome''are,by themselves,meaningless,and

disregardedbytheCourt.Apartyobjectingonthesebasesmustexplainthespecificandparticular

waysin which a requestis vague,overly broad,orunduly burdensome. See Fed.R.Civ.P.

33(b)(4)and34(b)(2)(B);PanolaLandBuyersAss'n.v.Shuman,762F.2d1550,1559(11thCir.

1

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2020 Page 1 of 7
1985)(citingJosephsv.HarrisCorp.,677F.2d985,992(3dCir.1982))(thepartyresisting

discoverykm ustshow specifcallyhow ...eachinterrogatoryisnotrelevantorhow eachquestion

isoverlybroad,burdensomeoroppressive.'''l).Ifapartybelievesthattherequestisvague,that

partyshalattempttoobtainclarifcationpriortoobjectingonthisground.

2. IrrelevantOrNotReasonablyCalculatedtoLead toAdm issibleEvidence

Anobjectionthatadiscoveryrequestisnotrelevantmustincludeaspecificexplanation

describingwhytherequestlacksrelevanceand/orwhytherequesteddiscoveryisdisproportionate

inlightofthefactorsenumeratedinFederalRuleofCivilProcedure26(b)(1).Anobjectionthata

discoveryrequestisSçnotreasonablycalculatedtoleadtoadmissibleevidence''isanoutdatedtype

ofobjection,asthatlanguagenolongerdefinesthescopeofdiscoveryinfederalcourt.Thecurrent

version ofRule26(b)(1)definesthescopeofdiscovery asûiany nonprivileged matterthatis

relevanttoanyparty'sclaim ordefenseandproportionaltotheneedsofthecase''--andthenlists

severalfactorsto analyze.The Courtrem inds the parties thatthe FederalRulesprovide that

inform ationwithinthisscopeofdiscoveryçtneednotbeadm issibleinevidence''tobediscoverable.

SeeFed.R.Civ.P.26(b)(l),'seeOppenheimerFun4Inc.v.Sanders,437U.S.340,351-52(1978).

3. ObjectionsBasedUponScope

lfthereisanobjectionbaseduponanundulybroadscope,suchastimeframeorgeographic

location,discoveryshouldbeprovidedastothosematterswithinthescopethatarenotdisputed.

Forexample,ifdiscovery issoughtnationwide foraten-yearperiod,and theresponding party

objectsonthegroundsthatonlyative-yearperiodlimitedtoactivitieswithintheStateofFlorida

isappropriate,therespondingpartyshallprovideresponsivediscoveryfallingwithinthetive-year

periodastotheStateofFlorida.

4.FormulaicObjectionsFolowedbyanAnswer

2

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2020 Page 2 of 7
Partiesshalnotreciteaformulaicobjectionfollowedbyananswertotherequest.Federal

RuleofCivilProcedure34(b)(2)(C)specifically requiresan objection to statewhetherany

responsivem aterialsarebeingwithheld. SeeCivilDiscovery Standards,2004A .B.A .Sec.Lit.

18;seealsoS.D.Fla.L.R.26.1(e)(2)(A).Counselshalincludeintheansweraclearstatement

thatal1responsive documents/information identified have in factbeen produced/provided,or

othenvisedescribethecategoryofdocum ents/inform ationthathavebeenwithheldonthebasisof

theobjection.

5. ObjectionsBaseduponPrivilege

Generalizedobjectionsassertingatorney-clientprivilegeorworkproductdoctrinedonot

comply withtheLocalRules.LocalRule26.1(e)(2)(B)requiresthatobjectionsbasedupon

privilegeidentifythespecificnatureoftheprivilegebeingasserted,aswellasidentifysuchthings

asthenatureandsubjectmatterofthecommunicationatissue,thesenderandreceiverofthe

communicationandtheirrelationshiptoeachother,amongothers.Partiesareinstructedtoreview

thisLocalRulecarefuly,andrefrainfrom objectionsintheform of:Sûobjection.Thisinformation

isprotectedbyattorney-clientand/orworkproductprivilege.''Ifageneralobjectionofprivilege

ismadewithoutattachingaproperprivilegelog,theobjectionofprivilegemaybedeemedwaived.

Theproduction ofnon-privileged materialsshould notbedelayed while aparty ispreparing a

privilegelog.

6. ObjectionstoScopeof30(b)(6)NoticesforDepositions

Objectionstothescopeofadepositionnoticeshalberaisedbytimelyservingthose

objectionsupon theopposing party in advance ofthe deposition,notby filing amotion for

protectiveorderseeking anticipatory review beforethedeposition.SeeKing v.Pratt(f'Whitney,

161F.R.D.475(S.D.Fla.1995);New WorldNetworkLtd.v.M/vNorwegianSea,No.05-22916

3

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2020 Page 3 of 7
CIV,2007WL 1068124,at*5(S.D.Fla.Apr.6,2007).TheCtbetterproceduretofollow forthe

properoperationoftheRuleisforacorporatedeponenttoobjecttothedesignationtopicsthatare

believedtobeimproperandgivenoticetotherequestingpartyofthoseobjections,sothatthey

can either be resolved in advance or otherwise.The requesting party has the obligation to

reconsideritsposition,narrow thescopeofthetopic,orotherwisestandon itsposition and seek

tocom peladditionalanswersifnecessary,followingthedeposition.''DirectGen.Ins.Co.v.Indian

Harborlns.Co.,No.14-20050-C1V,2015WL 12745536,at#1(S.D.Fla.Jan.29,2015).

7. BurdentoSustainObjections

Toshowthattherequesteddiscoveryisobjectionable,theburdenisontheobjectingparty

todemonstratewithspecificityhow theobjected-torequestisunreasonable.Rossbachv.Rundle,

128F.Supp.2d1348,1354(S.D.Fla.2000);Dunkin'Donuts,Inc.v.Mary'sDonuts,lnc.)No.

01-0392-C1V-GOLD,2001WL34079319,at*3(S.D.Fla.2001);Milinazzov.StateFarm Ins.

Co.,247F.R.D.691,695(S.D.Fla.2007).Failuretosatisfythisburdenwilresultinentryofan

ordercompellingdiscoveryunderRule37.Failuretoshow thattheobjectingparty'spositionwas

substantialyjustifiedwilresultinentryofmonetarysanctionsunderthatRule.lftheburdento

sustainanobjectionissatisfied,therequestingpartywillhavetoshow withspeciticityhow the

inform ation is relevant and necessary,and proportionalto the particular needs ofthe case.

Lombardiv.NCL(Bahamas)Ltd.,No.15-20966-C1V,2015WL 12085849,at*1(S.D.Fla.Dec.

11,2015).

8. DiscoveryDisputeProcedure

Ifabonafidediscoverydisputearisesnotwithstandingtheseguidelines,thepartiesmust

firstconferinagoodfaithefforttoresolvethedisputeincompliancewithS.D.Fla.L.R.7.1(a)(3).

CounselmustunderthisLocalRulecertify thatgood faitheffortswerem adeand describethose

4

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2020 Page 4 of 7
effortsbydateandmeansofcommunication(inpersonortelephonic;emailcorrespondencealone

doesnotconstituteasufticientconferral).Anadequatecertificateofconferencealmostalways

requiresatleastone,ifnotm ore,personalcommunicationbetween counsel.TheCourtmay deny

reliefifcounselfailstoabidebythisobligation orfailstocertifycom pliancewiththeRule.

Exceptas provided below,discovery disputes shallnotbe raised by filing discovery

m otionsunderRule37.1f,afterconferring,partiesareunabletoresolvetheirdiscovery disputes

withoutCourtintervention,theCourtwillsetthematterforahearing.A regulardiscoverycalendar

isheld every Thursday afternoon,beginning at1:00 p.m .,atthe C.Clyde AtkinsUnited States

Courthouse,301N orth M iam iAvenue,Eleventh Floor,in M iam i,Florida.Theparty seekingto

enforceadiscoveryobligationorobtainprotectionfrom suchanobligation(thetûmovanf')shall

utilize the discovery calendar process.After conferring with the opposing party to confirm

availabledates/times,themovantshallcontacttheundersigned'sChambersby sending anemail

to lotlisri-ytlsd.blscclurts-Rosr.The subjectline ofthe emailshallbe SsRequestforDiscovery

Hearing''. TheemailshallprovidetheCourtwith twoproposedtim eson theCourt'sdiscovery

calendarwithinthe following fourteen businessdayswherea1lpartiesazeavailable.Theemail

shallstatetheam ountoftimethatthepartiesanticipateneeding forthehearing.Theemailshall

becopiedtoa11counselandshallcertifythatthemovingpartyhasconferredwithopposingcounsel

andconfirmedopposingcounsel'savailability ontheproposeddates/tim es.

Onthesameday thattheCoul'tccmfirmsan availabletim eon thediscoverycalendar,the

movantshalfileaNoticeofHearing(andcalendarafriscoveryHearing''ontheECFsystem

whenprompted).TheNoticeofHearingshallspecifythesubstanceofthediscoverymattertobe

heard.Forexam ple,Ct-f'hepartiesdisputetheappropriatetim efram eforPlaintiffslnterrogatory

Nos.1,5,6-9,5'orû-l-he partiesdisputethenumberofdepositionspennitted.''TheNoticeshall

5

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2020 Page 5 of 7
alsoincludeacertificateofgoodfaiththatcomplieswithLocalRule7.1(a)(3).

The partiesshallprovidetheundersigned a copy ofal1sourcematerialsrelevantto the

discovery dispute via scanned PDF document that is em ailed to the CM /ECF mailbox

(lcpuisizètlscl.uscotl4s.qoN?),nolaterthannoontwobusinessdaysprecedingthediscoverycalendar.

(Forexample,ifthedisputeconcernsinterrogatories,theinterrogatoriesatissueandtheresponse

theretoshallbeprovidedtotheundersigned'sChambers.)A proposedOrderontheissuesraised

shallalsobesubmitted,whichshallsetforththespecificreliefrequestedforeachrequest/category

ofrequest.

W ithrespecttoissuesinvolvingprivilegedisputes,thepartywiththeburdenofpersuasion

onaprivilegeclaim hastheobligationtopresenttotheCourt,nolaterthanthetimeofthehearing,

swornevidenceifnecessaryto satisfythatburden.Thefailuretopresentthatswornevidenceby

thescheduledhearingm aybedeem edbytheCourtawaiveroftheprivilegeabsentashowingof

goodcause.

IfamotionforprotectiveorderisrequiredforaparticulardisputeunderRule26(c),Rule

30(d)(3),orLocalRule26.1(g)(3),itmustbeserved(notfiled)ontheopposingpartyassoonas

possibleand should notbe subm itted on the eve ofthe contested event. The failtlreto timely

preserveanobjectionforthatpurposemaybedeemedawaiver.Butifadepositionscheduling

disputearisespriortoadeposition,theserviceofthem otionfollowedby agood faith conference

toresolvethedisputewillbesufficienttopreservetheissuesinvolvedwithoutfearofwaiverprior

totheCourtresolvingthedisputeatadiscoveryconference.SeealsoS.D.Fla.L.R.26.1(h).lfthe

partiesdonotthereafterreach agreem entto resolvethedispute,them oving party shallschedule

thematteratthenextavailablediscovery calendar.

6

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2020 Page 6 of 7
DiscoverydisputesmustberaisedtimelyasrequiredbyS.D.Fla.L.R.26.1(g)(1).The

Courtstrictly enforcesthisRule and intep retsthethirty-day window astheopportunity during

whichgoodfaithresolutioneffortsmustbemade(subjecttotheseven-dayagreedextension

pennitedbytherulel.TheCourtalsoenforcesRule26.1(d)thatrequiresthatal discovery,

including resolution ofdiscovery disputes,be fully com pleted prior to the expiration ofthe

discoverycutoff.Thepartiesaregenerallyfreetoengageinagreed-upondiscoveryafterthecutoff

date;butbyvirtueoftheRule,no Courtintervention orremedy willbeavailableto eitherparty

afterthecutoffdate.

DONE AND ORDERED inChambersatM iami,Florida,this9thdayofSeptember,2020.

*

L UREN FLEISCHER LOUIS

UN ITED STATESM AGISTRATE JUDGE

7

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2020 Page 7 of 7