IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ELITE MITIGATION SERVICES, )

LLC a/a/o Greta Lawrence, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No.: 5:19-cv-381-TKW-MJF

)

WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES )

INSURANCE COMPANY, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

DEFENDANT WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE 

COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLETE RESPONSES AND TO 

OVERRULE OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST 

INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF 

Defendant Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company (“Westchester”), 

by and through its undersigned counsel, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

37 and Local Rule 7.1(b), hereby files this motion to compel complete responses and 

to overrule objections to defendant’s first interrogatories to plaintiff, and states in 

support as follows:

I. Legal Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, “[p]arties may obtain discovery 

regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense 

and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Information 

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 1 of 33
2

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

discoverable,” Id., and “[c]ourts construe relevancy ‘broadly to encompass any 

matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter[s] that could bear

on, any issue that is or may be in the case.’” Ford v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 2015 

WL 11109373, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 3, 2015) (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. 

Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978)). 

“A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, 

designation, production, or inspection,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B), and the Court 

has “broad discretion” to compel such discovery. Josendis v. Wall to Wall 

Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292, 1306 (11th Cir. 2011). The party resisting 

discovery has the burden of proving that the requested discovery is either irrelevant, 

or of such marginal relevance that the potential harm occasioned by discovery 

outweighs the ordinary presumption in favor of broad disclosure. See Vision Constr. 

Ent., Inc. v. Argos Ready Mix, LLC, 2017 WL 10084359, at *2 (N.D. Fla. June 28, 

2017).

II. Motion to Compel Complete Responses and to Overrule Objections 

to Defendant’s First Interrogatories

Westchester served plaintiff Elite Mitigation Services a/a/o Greta Lawrence 

(“Elite”) with its first interrogatories to plaintiff and first request for production of 

documents by email on December 24, 2019. Exhibit “A,” attached to this motion, is 

a true and correct copy of the email. 

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 2 of 33
3

Although its certificates of service to Elite’s answers state that service was 

made on November 11, 2019, Elite served its answers to interrogatories and 

responses to request for production of documents on January 15, 2020. On January 

16, 2020, Elite served its responses to Westchester’s requests for admission, 

privilege log and responsive documents.

On January 27, 2020, counsel for Westchester sent a detailed good faith 

correspondence to counsel for Elite, which set forth Westchester’s position 

containing quotes of the discovery requests, Elite’s responses and citation to the 

rules of procedure, local rules and case law from the Northern District of Florida. A 

true and correct copy of this correspondence is attached to this motion as Exhibit 

“B.” 

On February 7, 2020, Elite served amended responses to the interrogatories,

but the amended responses remained largely deficient and continued to raise 

meritless objections. Counsel for Westchester sent an additional good faith 

correspondence detailing these deficiencies later on February 7, 2020. A true and 

correct copy of this correspondence is attached to this motion as Exhibit “C.” 

As required by Local Rule 26.1(D), Westchester will follow the court’s 

required format for a motion to compel:

(1)Quote the discovery request verbatim;

(2)Quote each objection specifically directed to the discovery request; and

(3)Set out the reasons why the discovery should be compelled.

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 3 of 33
4

III. First Interrogatories to Plaintiff

A. Preliminary Statement and General Objections 

Elite’s original answers to the interrogatories contained a “Preliminary 

Statement,” which sets forth three boilerplate limitations that are incorporated into

Elites’ responses to each of the twenty interrogatories. Elite’s original answers also 

contained “GENERAL OBJECTIONS,” which set forth seven boilerplate objections 

that are incorporated into Elite’s responses to each of the twenty interrogatories..

In its good faith attempt to resolve the discovery dispute, Westchester referred

Elite to Local Rule 26.1(c), which states that “an objection cannot be set out 

generally for an entire set of discovery requests.” Westchester also cited to 

Covington v. Sailormen, Inc., 274 F.R.D. 692, 693-94 (N.D. Fla. 2011), which 

states that “[c]ommon sense should have been enough for Defendant to know that 

boilerplate, shotgun-style ‘General Objections,’ incorporated without discrimination 

into every answer, were not consistent with Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(4)'s directive that 

‘[t]he grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity.’”

Elite’s amended responses to Westchester’s interrogatories removed the 

preliminary statement and general objections. This represents the only substantive 

change following Westchester’s first good faith correspondence to resolve the 

discovery dispute. 

B. Interrogatory No. 3

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 4 of 33
5

Interrogatory: 

Identify each person who, to plaintiff’s knowledge, information or belief has made 

an investigation of any aspect of the allegations contained in plaintiff’s complaint 

against Westchester. For each such person, provide the following:

(a) The name, address, telephone number, business address, and business telephone 

number;

(b) The specific facts, information or knowledge possessed by each person; and

(c) Whether the person has provided a written or recorded statement of any type to 

plaintiff or its counsel.

Original Response/Objection: 

Please see answer to Interrogatory #2 above. Further, Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(b)(4)(D)(ii) protects from disclosure “facts known or opinions held by 

an expert who has been retained or specially employed by another party in 

anticipation of litigation or to prepare for trial and who is not expected to be called 

as a witness at trial,” except where there exist “exceptional circumstances under 

which it is impracticable for the [requesting] party to obtain facts or opinions on the 

same subject by other means.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(D)(ii). Plaintiff objects 

to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to request disclosure of information 

protected by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(D)(ii). In addition to the individuals named 

here, Plaintiff reserves the right to name additional individuals, including the 

custodian(s) of all records, if any, required for authentication of documents, and any 

and all additional witnesses learned through the discovery process.

Amended Response/Objection:

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and unclear. The terms 

“made an investigation” are not defined and are not clear. To the extent that anyone 

could have “made an investigation”, please see answer to Interrogatory #2 above. 

Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(D)(ii) protects from disclosure 

“facts known or opinions held by an expert who has been retained or specially 

employed by another party in anticipation of litigation or to prepare for trial and who 

is not expected to be called as a witness at trial,” except where there exist 

“exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the [requesting] party 

to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(4)(D)(ii). Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to 

request disclosure of information protected by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(D)(ii). In 

addition to the individuals referenced here, Plaintiff reserves the right to name 

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 5 of 33
6

additional individuals, including the custodian(s) of all records, if any, required for 

authentication of documents, and any and all additional witnesses learned through 

the discovery process.

Westchester’s Statement:

The amended response, which incorporates the response to interrogatory no. 

2, is inadequate. The response to interrogatory no. 2 does not indicate which of the 

listed persons “made an investigation of any aspect of the allegations” or what that 

person determined. In fact, Elite did not amend its response to interrogatory no. 2. 

The only amendment to the response to interrogatory no. 3 is the introduction 

of a new objection. For the first time, Elite declares that it does not know the meaning 

of the phrase “made an investigation.” This objection is untimely and therefore has 

been waived. In Bailey Industries, Inc. v. CLJP, Inc., 270 F.R.D. 662, 668 (N.D. 

Fla. 2010), the Court stated that, “as a general rule, when a party fails to timely object 

to interrogatories, production requests, or other discovery efforts, the objections are 

deemed waived. See In re United States, 864 F.2d 1153, 1156 (5th Cir.1989). This 

is so even though a party had an objection to make. See Jaffe v. Grant, 793 F.2d 

1182, 1190 n. 6 (11th Cir. 1986) (objection based on Fifth Amendment waived by 

failure to timely assert such privilege in response to discovery); Peat, Marwick, 

Mitchell & Co. v. West, 748 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1984) (same as to work 

product).”

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 6 of 33
7

Elite did not explain why this objection was omitted from its original 

response. Elite’s apparent inability to identify the person or persons who “made an 

investigation of any aspect of the allegations contained in plaintiff’s complaint” due 

to its new found confusion, did not prevent it from again referencing its response to 

interrogatory no. 2. The objection is untimely, waived and brought in bad faith. 

As to the privilege objection, Elite did not change its original response. It has 

no basis in law to withhold the identity of any consulting expert that may fall under 

Rule 26(b)(4)(D)(ii). See Clark v. Hercules, Inc., 2:13-cv-794-FtM-29MRM, 2017 

WL 3316311, *11 (M.D. Fla. August 3, 2017):

Additionally, the Court notes that while “[o]rdinarily, a party may not, 

by interrogatories or deposition, discover facts known or opinions held 

by an expert who has been retained or specially employed by another 

party in anticipation of litigation or to prepare for trial and who is not 

expected to be called as a witness at trial,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(D), 

district courts in the Eleventh Circuit have nevertheless stated that 

the identity of such experts “would not be protected from 

disclosure by the rule.” Solidda Grp., S.A. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., No. 

12-24469-CIV-DIMITROULE, 2013 WL 12091057, at *7 (S.D. Fla. 

Mar. 19, 2013). Thus, without any specific objection by Plaintiff on this 

ground, the Court finds no reason to prevent Defendant from 

discovering the identity of any persons Plaintiff retained or specially 

employed in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial and whom 

Plaintiff does not expect to call as a witness at trial.

(Emphasis supplied).

C. Interrogatory No. 4

Interrogatory:

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 7 of 33
8

Identify each communication between any employee, representative or agent of 

plaintiff and any employee, representative or agent of Westchester, including, but 

not limited to Cynthia Vann and Leon Spears, regarding the claimed loss, and as to 

each communication, state:

(a) the name(s) of the person(s) involved in the communication;

(b) the method(s) of communication; 

(c) the date of the communication; and

(d) the substance in detail of the communication.

Response/Objection:

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad and harassing. 

Plaintiff is unable to identify each and every single communication between it and 

the Defendant, Cynthia Vann, or Leon Spears. However, the Defendant possesses a 

claim file which contains claim log notes that documents said communications, if 

any. Thus, they are already within the knowledge and/or possession of Defendant. 

To the extent that Plaintiff is able to identify communications, they are contained in 

the attached Exhibit “A.”

Amended Response/Objection:

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague, overly broad, and harassing 

as the Defendant has never defined the word “communication,” or the form or scope 

of “communications” being requested. The requested time frame is also broad and 

not limited in scope. Furthermore, Plaintiff is unable to identify each and every 

single “communication” between it and the Defendant, Cynthia Vann, or Leon 

Spears. However, the Defendant possesses a claim file which contains claim log 

notes that documents said communications, if any. Thus, they are already within the 

knowledge and/or possession of Defendant. To the extent that Plaintiff is able to 

identify communications, they are contained in the attached Exhibit “A.”

Westchester’s Statement:

Elite has made three attempts in its amended responses to bolster its initial 

boilerplate objection of “overly broad and harassing” in response to Westchester’s 

reference to Local Rule 26.1(c), which states that “[b]oilerplate objections are 

strongly disfavored.”

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 8 of 33
9

Elite first attempts to introduce a new objection – vagueness. This objection 

is untimely and waived. Bailey Industries, Inc. v. CLJP, Inc. 270 F.R.D. at 668. 

Elite then claims that it does not understand the meaning of 

“communications.” While the parties are not required to follow the dictates of the 

Middle District Discovery Handbook, it does provide relevant guidance:

Responses. Rule 33(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires the 

respondent to answer an interrogatory separately and fully in writing 

and under oath, unless the respondent objects, in which event the party 

objecting shall state the reasons for objection and shall answer to the 

extent the interrogatory is not objectionable. Interrogatories should 

be interpreted reasonably, in good faith, and according to the 

meaning the plain language of the interrogatory would naturally 

import. When in doubt about the meaning of an interrogatory, the 

responding party should give it a reasonable interpretation (which may 

be specified in the response) and offer an answer designed to provide, 

rather than deny, information. 

Elite, before it served its amended responses on February 7, 2020, never claimed

that it did not understand the meaning of “communications” or the intent of 

interrogatory no. 4. Elite did not even make an effort to respond to the interrogatory 

with a reasonable interpretation of the term. 

Elite finally raises an additional objection, claiming the interrogatory is 

overbroad due to the failure to define the time and scope of the requested 

communications. A cursory review of the interrogatory demonstrates that this 

objection is unfounded and not made in good faith. The interrogatory limits the 

request to communications “regarding the claimed loss.” Therefore, the broadest 

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 9 of 33
10

possible interpretation of this request calls for identification all of communications 

between the date of loss (October 10, 2018) and the date suit was filed (May 28, 

2019). This limited time frame is not overly broad.

Elite’s assertion that it is “unable” to properly respond is insufficient because 

it did not show that it at least attempted to respond. The time frame and scope of the 

inquiry are limited and directed solely to information relevant to this case. Directing 

Westchester to its own file is non-responsive. 

After claiming that it does not know the meaning of “communications,” Elite 

directs Westchester to documents contained in Exhibit “A” as part of its response. 

The Middle District’s Discovery Handbook, which provides guidance on how these 

matters should be addressed, states in Section III(A)(10) that, in responding to 

interrogatories, Rule 33(d) allows a party “in very limited circumstances to produce 

business records in lieu of answering interrogatories.” It then requires parties to 

observe six detailed requirements, including “(a) Specify the documents to be 

produced in sufficient detail to permit the interrogating party to locate and identify 

the records and to ascertain the answer as readily as could the party from whom

discovery is sought.” This is consistent with the Northern District’s requirement. 

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones held in McMillan v. Department of Corrections, et 

al, 5:13-cv-292-WS-GRJ, 2014 WL 12639343, *2 (N.D. Fla. April 28, 2014), that 

“although a responding party may answer an interrogatory by reference to a business 

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 10 of 33
11

record ‘if the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer will be substantially the 

same for either party,’ the responding party must specify the record in sufficient 

detail for the interrogating party to locate and identify them.” Elite did not identify 

what documents contained in its Exhibit “A” are responsive to this interrogatory, 

and Westchester’s review did not find any responsive documents.

D. Interrogatory No. 5

Interrogatory: 

Identify each communication between any employee, representative or agent of 

plaintiff and any employee, agent, or representative of Pier 98 Marina, Inc. 

including, but not limited to Daniel Hogan, regarding the claimed loss, and as to 

each communication, state:

(a) the name(s) of the person(s) involved in the communication;

(b) the method(s) of communication; 

(c) the date of the communication; and

(d) the substance in detail of the communication.

Response/Objection:

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad and harassing. 

Plaintiff is unable to identify each and every single communication between it and 

Pier 98 Marina, Inc. or Daniel Hogan. To the extent that Plaintiff is able to identify 

communications, they are contained in the attached Exhibit “A.”

Amended Response/Objection:

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague, overly broad, and harassing 

as the Defendant has never defined the word “communication,” or the form or scope 

of “communications” being requested. The requested time frame is also broad and 

not limited in scope. Furthermore, Plaintiff is unable to identify each and every 

single “communication” between it and Pier 98 Marina, Inc. or Daniel Hogan. To 

the extent that Plaintiff is able to identify communications, they are contained in the 

attached Exhibit “A.” 

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 11 of 33
12

Westchester’s Statement:

Westchester refers to and incorporates in this section its above discussion 

regarding Interrogatory no. 4.

E. Interrogatory No. 6

Interrogatory: 

Identify each communication between any employee, representative or agent of 

plaintiff and any employee, agent, or representative of Greta Lawrence including, 

but not limited to Daniel Hogan, regarding the claimed loss, and as to each 

communication, state:

(a) the name(s) of the person(s) involved in the communication;

(b) the method(s) of communication; 

(c) the date of the communication; and

(d) the substance in detail of the communication.

Response/Objection: 

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad and harassing. 

Plaintiff is unable to identify each and every single communication between it and 

Greta Lawrence or Daniel Hogan. To the extent that Plaintiff is able to identify 

communications, they are contained in the attached Exhibit “A”.

Amended Response/Objection:

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague, overly broad, and harassing 

as the Defendant has never defined the word “communication,” or the form or scope 

of “communications” being requested. The requested time frame is also broad and 

not limited in scope. Furthermore, Plaintiff is unable to identify each and every single 

“communication” between and Greta Lawrence or Daniel Hogan. To the extent that 

Plaintiff is able to identify communications, they are contained in the attached 

Exhibit “A.”

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 12 of 33
13

Westchester’s Statement:

Westchester refers to and incorporates in this section its above discussion 

regarding Interrogatory no. 4.

F. Interrogatory No. 7

Interrogatory: 

Identify each communication between any employee, representative or agent of 

plaintiff and any employee, agent, or representative of S.C. Hall Construction, 

regarding the claimed loss, and as to each communication, state:

(a) the name(s) of the person(s) involved in the communication;

(b) the method(s) of communication; 

(c) the date of the communication; and

(d) the substance in detail of the communication.

Response/Objection: 

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad and harassing. 

Plaintiff is unable to identify each and every single communication between it and 

S.C. Hall Construction. To the extent that Plaintiff is able to identify

communications, they are contained in the attached Exhibit “A.”

Amended Response/Objection:

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague, overly broad, and harassing 

as the Defendant has never defined the word “communication,” or the form or scope 

of “communications” being requested. The requested time frame is also broad and 

not limited in scope. Furthermore, Plaintiff is unable to identify each and every 

single “communication” between it and S.C. Hall Construction. To the extent that 

Plaintiff is able to identify communications, they are contained in the attached 

Exhibit “A.”

Westchester’s Statement:

Westchester refers to and incorporates in this section its above discussion 

regarding Interrogatory no. 4.

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 13 of 33
14

G. Interrogatory No. 8

Interrogatory: 

Identify each communication between any employee, representative or agent of 

plaintiff regarding the claimed loss to any other employee, representative or agent 

of plaintiff, and as to each communication, state:

(e) the name(s) of the person(s) involved in the communication;

(f) the method(s) of communication; 

(g) the date of the communication; and

(h) the substance in detail of the communication.

Response/Objection:

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad and harassing and 

seeks attorney-client information. Plaintiff is unable to identify each and every 

single communication between its employees, representatives, or agents. To the 

extent that Plaintiff is able to identify communications, they are contained in the 

attached Exhibit “A.”

Amended Response/Objection:

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague, overly broad, and 

harassing, and seeks attorney-client privilege protected information as the Defendant 

has never defined the word “communication,” or the form or scope of 

“communications” being requested. The requested time frame is also broad and not 

limited in scope. Furthermore, Plaintiff is unable to identify each and every single 

“communication” between its employees, representatives, or agents. To the extent 

that Plaintiff is able to identify communications, they are contained in the attached 

Exhibit “A.” 

Westchester’s Statement:

Westchester refers to and incorporates in this section its above discussion 

regarding Interrogatory no. 4. Further, Elite has introduced a new objection in its 

amended responses – attorney/client privilege. This objection is untimely and 

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 14 of 33
15

waived. Bailey Industries, Inc. v. CLJP, Inc at 668. Elite’s amended privilege log 

does not properly identify any communications protected from discovery under the 

attorney/client privilege. Westchester has filed a separate motion to compel 

production of a privilege log in accordance with the requirements of this Court or 

production of all withheld documents.

H. Interrogatory No. 11

Interrogatory: 

Identify each document that supports, discusses, or in any way pertains to the 

calculation of damages sustained by the insured property as a result of the claimed 

loss. 

Response/Objection: 

The Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and unclear. To the 

extent that Plaintiff can identify documents with respect to the damages sustained 

by the insured property as a result of the loss, please see attached Exhibit “A”..)

Amended Response/Objection:

The Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and unclear with respect 

to the terms “calculation of damages”. These terms are not defined and are not clear. 

To the extent that Plaintiff can identify documents with respect to the dollar amount 

of damages sustained by the insured property as a result of the loss, please see 

attached Exhibit “A”.

Westchester’s Statement:

As previously discussed, the Middle District Discovery Handbook provides

relevant guidance.

Responses. Rule 33(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires the 

respondent to answer an interrogatory separately and fully in writing 

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 15 of 33
16

and under oath, unless the respondent objects, in which event the party 

objecting shall state the reasons for objection and shall answer to the 

extent the interrogatory is not objectionable. Interrogatories should 

be interpreted reasonably, in good faith, and according to the 

meaning the plain language of the interrogatory would naturally 

import. When in doubt about the meaning of an interrogatory, the 

responding party should give it a reasonable interpretation (which may 

be specified in the response) and offer an answer designed to provide, 

rather than deny, information. 

Elite, before it served its amended responses on February 7, 2020, never claimed

that it did not understand the meaning of “calculation of damages” or the intent of 

interrogatory no. 11. Elite did not make any effort to respond to the interrogatory 

with a reasonable interpretation of the term. 

Elite also did not specify in its amended responses how the phrase “calculation 

of damages” is “vague and unclear.” Elite alleges in its complaint regarding the 

alleged damages to the dwelling the following:

¶1 – action for “damages in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars”

¶16 – “Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of Defendant’s breach in the 

form of insurance proceeds which have not been paid...”

(a) Demand for an order “awarding damages”

Elite alleges in its complaint regarding the alleged damages to the commercial 

building the following:

¶1 – action for “damages in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars”

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 16 of 33
17

¶16 – “Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of Defendant’s breach in the 

form of insurance proceeds which have not been paid...”

(a) Demand for an order “awarding damages”

It appears from the language used in its own complaint that Elite understands the 

term “damages.” There are indications that Elite also is aware of the definition of 

“calculation.” In its responses to Westchester’s requests for admission, Elite states 

that “[i]n total, $123,744.19 is outstanding and due to the Plaintiff.” The 

interrogatory asks Elite to identify documents that support that calculation. Bad faith 

claims of ignorance of basic terms are no better than the prior conclusory statement 

that the question is “vague and unclear.”

I. Interrogatory No. 12

Interrogatory: 

Identify the price guidelines utilized by plaintiff for claims arising out of Hurricane 

Michael. In the event plaintiff utilizes published guidelines or “off the shelf” 

software, without modification, plaintiff may respond by simply identifying by 

name, version, and/or edition of the published guidelines utilized.

Response/Objection: 

The Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is seeks protected work 

product, trade-secret, and proprietary information. It is also vague and unclear. To 

the extent that the Defendant’s seeks information regarding the basis for Plaintiff’s 

invoiced amounts, the submitted detailed invoices speak for themselves.

Additionally, the amounts charged are reasonable and customary for the 

geographical area in which the services were performed at the time they were 

performed.

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 17 of 33
18

Amended Response/Objection:

The Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and unclear with respect 

to the terms “price guidelines”, “published guidelines”, and “off the shelf software”. 

These terms are not defined and are not clear. To the extent that the Defendant’s 

seeks information regarding the basis for Plaintiff’s invoiced amounts, the submitted 

detailed invoices speak for themselves. Additionally, the amounts charged are 

reasonable and customary for the geographical area in which the services were 

performed at the time they were performed.

Westchester’s Statement:

Again, the Middle District Discovery Handbook provides relevant guidance:

Responses. Rule 33(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires the 

respondent to answer an interrogatory separately and fully in writing 

and under oath, unless the respondent objects, in which event the party 

objecting shall state the reasons for objection and shall answer to the 

extent the interrogatory is not objectionable. Interrogatories should 

be interpreted reasonably, in good faith, and according to the 

meaning the plain language of the interrogatory would naturally 

import. When in doubt about the meaning of an interrogatory, the 

responding party should give it a reasonable interpretation (which may 

be specified in the response) and offer an answer designed to provide, 

rather than deny, information. 

Elite, before it served its amended responses on February 7, 2020, never claimed

that it did not understand the meaning of “price guidelines,” “published guidelines” 

or “off the shelf software,” or the intent of interrogatory no. 12. Elite also did not 

make any effort to respond to the interrogatory with what it deems to be a reasonable 

interpretation of these terms. 

Documents produced by Elite as part of Exhibit “A” include estimates 

identified as “LAWRENCE_GRETA_2282” and “LAWRENCE_GRETA_0137.” 

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 18 of 33
19

Both of these documents include an entry for “Price List: FLPC8X_NOV18.” It is 

inconceivable that Elite did not understand Westchester’s use of the terms “price 

guidelines” or “published guidelines” in the interrogatory. 

Westchester has alleged that Elite’s invoices are excessive in both scope and 

pricing. The first three enumerated “Principal Factual and Legal Issues in Dispute,” 

identified in the parties’ Joint Report of the Parties’ Planning Meeting [Doc. 15], are 

as follows:

A. Whether plaintiff provided all of the services set forth in the invoices submitted 

to Westchester.

B. Whether the services provided by plaintiff as set forth in the invoices were 

reasonable and necessary.

C. Whether the services provided by plaintiff as set forth in the invoices were priced 

appropriately.

How Elite determined its pricing is not just relevant, it is central to this case. Elite 

withdrew its baseless privilege claims in response to this interrogatory, but still 

refuses to provide a substantive response. Elite’s claim that its pricing is “reasonable 

and customary for the geographical area” is subject to inquiry and should not be 

taken at face value. 

J. Interrogatory No. 13

Interrogatory: 

Identify what, if any, industry recognized published standard or guide plaintiff used 

in the determining the appropriate scope of work, equipment use and equipment 

distribution as set forth in the exhibits to plaintiff’s complaints identified as 

“LAWRENCE_GRETA_2282” and “LAWRENCE_GRETA_0137.”

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 19 of 33
20

Response/Objection: Please see answer to Interrogatory #12 above.

Amended Response/Objection:

The Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and unclear with respect 

to the terms “industry recognized published standard or guide.” These terms are not 

defined and are not clear. To the extent that the Defendant’s seeks information 

regarding the basis for Plaintiff’s invoiced amounts, the submitted detailed invoices 

speak for themselves. Additionally, the amounts charged are reasonable and 

customary for the geographical area in which the services were performed at the time 

they were performed.

Westchester’s Statement:

The Middle District Discovery Handbook also provides relevant guidance

here:

Responses. Rule 33(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires the 

respondent to answer an interrogatory separately and fully in writing 

and under oath, unless the respondent objects, in which event the party 

objecting shall state the reasons for objection and shall answer to the 

extent the interrogatory is not objectionable. Interrogatories should 

be interpreted reasonably, in good faith, and according to the 

meaning the plain language of the interrogatory would naturally 

import. When in doubt about the meaning of an interrogatory, the 

responding party should give it a reasonable interpretation (which may 

be specified in the response) and offer an answer designed to provide, 

rather than deny, information. 

Elite, before it served its amended responses on February 7, 2020, never claimed 

that it did not understand the meaning of “industry recognized published standard or 

guide” or the intent of interrogatory no. 13. Elite also did not make any effort to 

respond to the interrogatory with what it deems to be a reasonable interpretation of 

this term. 

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 20 of 33
21

Elite takes the term “industry recognized published standard or guide” out of 

context. Quoted fully, the inquiry asks Elite to identify “industry recognized 

published standard or guide plaintiff used in determining the appropriate scope of 

work, equipment use and equipment distribution.” (Italics omitted by Elite). The 

interrogatory itself provides all of the context and meaning that Elite possibly could 

need to respond fully and accurately to the inquiry. 

As stated previously, how Elite determined its pricing is not just relevant, it is 

central to this case. Elite withdrew its baseless privilege claims in response to this 

interrogatory, but still refuses to provide a substantive response. Elite’s claim that 

its pricing is “reasonable and customary for the geographical area” is subject to 

inquiry and should not be taken at face value. If Elite does not use any industry 

pricing standard or guideline, then it should so state in its response to the 

interrogatory. 

K. Interrogatory No. 14

Interrogatory: 

Identify each person who has inspected, investigated, evaluated and/or provided any 

work or service regarding the damage to the insured property that purportedly 

occurred as a result of the claimed loss on behalf of plaintiff and, with regard to each 

person, describe the conclusions of their investigation and/or evaluation or describe 

the nature of their work/service performed.

Response: 

Please see answer to Interrogatory #2 above.

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 21 of 33
22

Amended Response/Objection:

Please see answer to Interrogatory #2 above, which includes Hunter Walling and 

Caleb Keeney who performed work on behalf of Plaintiff. With respect to the nature 

of work performed on behalf of the Plaintiff, please see attached Exhibit “A”.

Westchester’s Statement:

Elite’s amended response continues to incorporate each person listed in 

response to interrogatory no. 2, which includes attorneys for Westchester. The 

reference to its answer to interrogatory no. 2 is inadequate. Specifying two of the 

persons/entities listed as people “who performed work” does not cure this 

deficiency. Nowhere in either the response to interrogatory no. 2 or no. 14 does Elite 

identify “the conclusions of [the listed persons’] investigation and/or evaluation or 

describe the nature of their work/service performed.” The answer is incomplete and 

requires a better response.

L. Interrogatory No. 15

Interrogatory: 

Identify the person(s) that drafted the estimates identified as 

“LAWRENCE_GRETA_2282” and “LAWRENCE_GRETA_0137,” and each 

person(s) that contributed to the data contained the estimates including, but not 

limited to the measurements, the determination of the type, number and placement 

of equipment, and the treatments.

Response/Objection: 

The Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that is seeks protected work 

product, trade-secret, and proprietary information. The Plaintiff prepared said 

invoices based on the completed work. To the extent that the Defendant’s seeks 

information regarding the basis for Plaintiff’s invoiced amounts, the submitted 

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 22 of 33
23

detailed invoices speak for themselves. Additionally, the amounts charged are 

reasonable and customary for the geographical area in which the services were 

performed at the time they were performed.

Amended Response/Objection:

The Plaintiff prepared said invoices based on the completed work. To the extent that 

the Defendant’s seeks information regarding the basis for Plaintiff’s invoiced 

amounts, the submitted detailed invoices speak for themselves. Additionally, the 

amounts charged are reasonable and customary for the geographical area in which 

the services were performed at the time they were performed.

Westchester’s Statement:

The first three enumerated “Principal Factual and Legal Issues in Dispute,”

identified in the parties’ Joint Report of the Parties’ Planning Meeting [Doc. 15], are 

as follows:

A. Whether plaintiff provided all of the services set forth in the invoices submitted 

to Westchester.

B. Whether the services provided by plaintiff as set forth in the invoices were 

reasonable and necessary.

C. Whether the services provided by plaintiff as set forth in the invoices were priced 

appropriately.

Westchester is entitled to the identity of the person or persons who prepared the 

invoices and contributed to the data contained in the invoices. Elite has withdrawn 

its baseless claim that the identity of this person or persons is a protected trade secret,

but it still has failed to identify the person or persons as requested. 

Reference to the invoices themselves is not responsive to this interrogatory. 

The invoices speak only to their contents, not to the basis for the contents or the 

identity of the person(s) who contributed to the data contained in them.

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 23 of 33
24

M. Interrogatory No. 16

Interrogatory: 

As to each person identified in response to interrogatory no. 14 set forth the training 

that he/she has received as it relates to the examination of property affected by water 

damage, application of the industry standard referenced in interrogatory no. 13, use 

of Xactimate or other type of relevant software, drafting of estimates and other 

actions taken on behalf of plaintiff.

Response/Objection: 

The Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is seeks protected work 

product, trade-secret, and proprietary information. It is also vague and unclear.

Amended Response/Objection:

The Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and unclear with respect 

to the terms “industry standard”, and “industry recognized published standard or 

guide” as referenced in response to Interrogatory No. 13. These terms are not 

defined and are not clear. To the extent that the Defendant’s seeks information 

regarding the basis for Plaintiff’s invoiced amounts, the submitted detailed invoices 

speak for themselves. Additionally, the amounts charged are reasonable and 

customary for the geographical area in which the services were performed at the time 

they were performed.

Westchester’s Statement:

Westchester refers to and incorporates in this section its above discussion 

regarding interrogatory no. 13. Further, Westchester’s reference to “industry 

standard” and “industry recognized published standard or guide” only represent part 

of the requested training information. Elite did not claim it did not understand the 

meaning of (1) “examination of property affected by water damage,” (2) “use of 

Xactimate or other type of relevant software,” (3) “drafting of estimates” and/or (4) 

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 24 of 33
25

“other actions taken on behalf of plaintiff.” Despite presumably comprehending the 

meaning of these four categories, Elite has failed to address any of these categories 

in its response. 

As previously stated, the first three enumerated “Principal Factual and Legal 

Issues in Dispute,” identified in the parties’ Joint Report of the Parties’ Planning 

Meeting [Doc. 15], are as follows:

A. Whether plaintiff provided all of the services set forth in the invoices submitted 

to Westchester.

B. Whether the services provided by plaintiff as set forth in the invoices were 

reasonable and necessary.

C. Whether the services provided by plaintiff as set forth in the invoices were priced 

appropriately.

Westchester is entitled to information about what, if any, training was 

received. Elite has withdrawn its baseless claim that the identity of this person or 

persons is a protected trade secret, but it still has failed to identify the person or 

persons and what training he or she received in order to prepare the estimates that it 

claims are “reasonable and customary for the geographical area.”

Reference to the invoices themselves is not responsive to the interrogatory. 

The invoices speak only to their contents, not to the basis for the contents or the 

identity of the person(s) who contributed to the data contained in them.

N. Interrogatory No. 19

Interrogatory:

State the basis for plaintiff’s following charges:

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 25 of 33
26

Exhibit “1”:

A. Overhead - $4,592.76 (See Page 9 of Exhibit “1”)

B. Profit - $4,592.76 (See Page 9 of Exhibit “1”)

C. Mortgage Processing Charge - $360.00 (See Page 7 of Exhibit “1”)

Exhibit “2”

D. Overhead - $2,177.76 (See Page 13 of Exhibit “2”)

E. Profit - $2,177.76 (See Page 13 of Exhibit “2”)

G. Mortgage Processing Charge - $360.00 (See Page 12 of Exhibit “2”)

Response: Please see answer to Interrogatory #12 above.

Elite’s response to interrogatory no. 12 is as follows:

The Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is seeks protected work 

product, trade-secret, and proprietary information. It is also vague and unclear. To 

the extent that the Defendant’s seeks information regarding the basis for Plaintiff’s 

invoiced amounts, the submitted detailed invoices speak for themselves. 

Additionally, the amounts charged are reasonable and customary for the 

geographical area in which the services were performed at the time they were 

performed.

Amended Response/Objection:

These charges are reasonable and customary for the geographical area in which the 

services were performed at the time they were performed.

Westchester’s Statement:

The interrogatory requested Elite to explain the basis for specific line items in

its invoices, which Westchester disputes. In its response, Elite maintains 

Westchester should take the invoices at face value and simply accept the conclusory 

statement that the contents are “reasonable and customary.” 

Elite was asked to “state the basis” for these specific line items in its invoices. 

“‘[C]ontention’ interrogatories are interrogatories that seek to clarify the basis for or 

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 26 of 33
27

scope of an adversary’s legal claims. The general view is that contention 

interrogatories are a perfectly permissible form of discovery, to which a response 

ordinarily would be required.” Waters Edge Living, LLC v. RSUI Indem. Co., 4:06-

cv-334-RH/WCS, 2008 WL 1816418, *5 (N.D. Fla. April 22, 2008) (citing Taylor 

v. FDIC, 132 F.3d 753, 762 (D.C. Cir.1997)); Vidamos, Inc. v. Laser Lab Ltd., 99 

F.3d 217, 222 (7th Cir. 1996).

Whether the services provided by plaintiff as set forth in the invoices were 

“reasonable and necessary” is a central issue in this case and is subject to inquiry. 

Westchester should not be expected to accept Elite’s conclusory statement that the 

charges are in fact “reasonable and necessary” without an opportunity to test that 

statement. Elite cannot maintain its position that the amounts charged in the invoices 

are “reasonable and necessary” while shielding itself from basic discovery designed 

to investigate that assertion.

O. Interrogatory No. 20

Interrogatory: 

If plaintiff responds to any of Westchester’s first requests for admission with 

anything other than an unqualified admission, state separately with respect to each 

request, and in detail and with particularity, each fact that supports plaintiff’s failure 

to respond to any request with an unqualified admission. 

Response: 

For facts, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see attached Exhibit “A.”

Amended Response:

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 27 of 33
28

For detailed facts supporting unqualified admissions, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

33(d), please see attached Exhibit “A.”

Westchester’s Statement:

Elite’s amended answer is not responsive. The interrogatory asks for 

information for each request for admission to which Elite responded “with anything 

other than an unqualified admission.” In response to this interrogatory, Elite 

attempts to bolster its failure to respond with unqualified admissions by reference to 

unorganized and unlabeled documents. 

Elite did not make any attempt to respond to this interrogatory. A proper reply

to Elite’s interrogatory is made more difficult due to Elite’s improper objections to 

the requests for admission themselves, which will be the subject of a separate 

motion. For example, Elite’s responses to requests for admission numbers 14, 15 and 

18 state that Elite made a reasonable inquiry in an effort to respond, but was unable 

to obtain necessary information. Elite is obligated to set forth what actions it took in 

its “reasonable inquiry.” Furthermore, Elite denied without comment 14 of the 

admission requests. Elite is obligated to set forth all facts that support these denials. 

Reference to unidentified documents without specifying which documents are 

responsive to which denials is not responsive.

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 28 of 33
29

IV. Good Faith Attempts to Resolve

On January 27, 2020, counsel for Westchester sent to counsel for Elite 

correspondence in a good faith attempt to resolve this discovery dispute which 

largely reflects the detailed arguments and citation to authority contained in this 

motion. The good faith correspondence stated that “[n]ormally, I would provide no 

less than 10 business days for amended responses. However, given the expedited 

discovery schedule in this matter I must insist that amended responses consistent 

with the below be received no later than 12:00 p.m. Monday, February 3, 2020.” On 

Saturday, February 1, 2020, counsel for Elite responded stating that he 

“understand[s] your concern, but I need more time to comply with your requests. I 

will need until Friday, 02/07/20, at the very least in order to provide you amended 

responses.” A true and correct copy of this email from Elite’s counsel is attached 

hereto as Exhibit “D”.

On February 7, 2020, Elite provided amended responses to Westchester’s 

interrogatories and requests for production and an amended privilege log. Other than 

removing all general objections, the amended responses did not provide any 

additional substantive information. Later the same day, counsel for Westchester sent 

additional correspondence to counsel for Elite regarding the amended responses

outlining Westchester’s concerns. See Exhibit “C”. Due to the accelerated 

scheduling order, Westchester’s counsel provided a short amount of time for Elite 

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 29 of 33
30

to provide complete discovery responses. Elite was given until 5:00 p.m. on 

Tuesday, February 11, 2020, to serve its second amended responses. 

Counsel for Elite finally responded at 7:25 p.m. on February 11, 2020, that 

his “client is willing to continue to work with you to resolve discovery issues.” A 

copy of this correspondence is attached to this motion as Exhibit “E.” 

Disappointingly, this correspondence did not include amended responses or produce 

any additional documents. Instead, counsel for Elite stated that it would oppose any 

motion to compel compliance with its discovery obligations based on the Court’s 

initial scheduling order in this case [Doc. 6]. That order stated as follows:

(1)(b) The parties are advised to make discovery requests no later than 

75 days before the end of the discovery period. Unless otherwise 

ordered by the Court, motions to compel discovery are due no later than 

30 days before the close of discovery. The Court will ordinarily 

entertain a motion to compel brought during the last 30 days of 

discovery only on a showing of reasonable diligence during the 

discovery period and the discovery dispute in question arose during 

the last 30 days of discovery. 

(Emphasis added).

Westchester has provided Elite every opportunity to provide complete 

discovery responses. Rather than comply with its discovery obligations, Elite now 

intends to weaponize Westchester’s good faith to avoid giving complete discovery 

responses required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local 

Rules.

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 30 of 33
31

Attorney Fee Request

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5) provides that, in the event a motion 

to compel discovery is granted, “the court must, after giving an opportunity to be 

heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the 

party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant's reasonable 

expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees.” The Court “must 

not order this payment if: (i) the movant filed the motion before attempting in good 

faith to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action; (ii) the opposing 

party's nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified; or (iii) other 

circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Id. 

The circumstances in this matter warrant an award of fees against Elite. None 

of Elite’s boilerplate objections are “substantially justified.” In Waters Edge Living, 

LLC v. RSUI Indem. Co., 4:06-cv-334-RH/WCS, 2008 WL 1816418, *5 (N.D. Fla. 

April 22, 2008), Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill, Jr. held that none of the 

defendant’s “lengthy and complicated” objections were “substantially justified.” 

This case does not offer a single complicated objection, but rather a collection of 

baseless boilerplate objections. Similar to the case here, the moving party in Waters 

Edge was forced to bear the “expense of filing over 30 pages of detailed arguments.” 

Magistrate Judge Sherrill then decided to not impose his standard order awarding an 

estimated partial award of expenses. He found that the prevailing party “should be 

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 31 of 33
32

made completely whole for pursuit of this discovery.” Such an award is just and 

appropriate under the circumstances of this case. 

WHEREFORE, defendant Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company 

respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant the following relief:

A. Overrule all objections set forth in Elite’s interrogatory responses as 

amended;

B. Order plaintiff to provide complete responses to Westchester’s 

interrogatories;

C. Award Westchester all reasonable expenses incurred in making this 

motion, including attorney fees; and

D. Reset all unexpired deadlines to afford Westchester an opportunity to fully 

engage in discovery and remove this matter from the June 29, 2020, trial calendar. 

CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1(B)

I HEREBY CERTIFY that counsel for Westchester has attempted to confer 

with counsel for plaintiff in good faith with respect to the relief requested in this 

instant Motion as detailed herein.

/s/ J. Richard Young

J. Richard Young

Fla. Bar No. 0563250 

LOCAL RULE 7.1(F) CERTIFICATE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the instant Motion and Memorandum contains

7,787 words. 

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 32 of 33
33

/s/ J. Richard Young

J. Richard Young

Fla. Bar No. 0563250 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this document has been served on the

12th day of February 2020 to the parties identified below (i) through the United States

District Court, Northern District of Florida, CM/ECF system or (ii) by the alternative 

method specified above the party’s name.

/s/ J. Richard Young, III

J. Richard Young, Esq.

Mozley, Finlayson & Loggins LLP

4767 New Broad Street

Orlando, FL 32814

407.514.2765

FL Bar: 0563250

RYoung@MFLLaw.com

-andWAYNE D. TAYLOR

Georgia Bar No. 701275

Admitted in USDC NDFL

MICHELLE A. SHERMAN

Georgia Bar No. 835980

Admitted in USDC NDFL

MOZLEY, FINLAYSON & LOGGINS LLP

1050 Crown Pointe Parkway, Suite 1500

Atlanta, Georgia 30338

Tel: (404) 256-0700

Fax: (404) 250-9355 

wtaylor@mfllaw.com

msherman@mfllaw.com

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/12/20 Page 33 of 33