.UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

 

ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY PROCEDURES

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

discovery matters. In order to facilitate the speedy and inexpensive resolution of this 

action, Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the following discovery procedures will 

apply in this case as of the date of this Order: 

1. The Court strictly enforces the guidelines on discovery objections set forth 

below, together with the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addressing 

discovery matters, Rules 26-37, and S.D. Fla. Local Rule 26.1: 

“Vague, Overly Broad and Unduly Burdensome”

a. Parties shall not make conclusory boilerplate objections. Such 

objections do not comply with Local Rule 26.1(G)(3)(a) which provides “Where an 

objection is made to any interrogatory or sub-part thereof or to any document request 

under Fed.R.Civ.P. 34, the objection shall state with specificity all grounds.” Blanket, 

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

burdensome” are, by themselves, meaningless, and disregarded by the Court. A party 

objecting on these bases must explain the specific and particular ways in which a 

request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); 

Josephs v. Harris Corp, 677 F.2d 985, 992 (3d Cir. 1982) (“the mere statement by a 

party that the interrogatory was ‘overly broad, burdensome, oppressive and 

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2023 Page 1 of 9
irrelevant’ is not adequate to voice a successful objection to an interrogatory.”). 

Sworn testimony or evidence may be necessary to show that a particular request is 

in fact burdensome. 

“Irrelevant Or Not Reasonably Calculated to Lead to Admissible Evidence” 

b. As with the previous objection, an objection that a discovery request is 

irrelevant or not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence must include a 

specific explanation describing why the request lacks relevance, and why the 

information sought will not reasonably lead to admissible evidence. Parties are 

reminded that the Federal Rules allow for broad discovery, which does not need to be 

admissible at trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); see Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. 

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

Specificity and Scope of Objections

c. Parties should avoid reciting a formulaic objection (or worse “General 

objections”) followed by an answer to the request. It has become common practice for 

a party to object on the basis of any of the above reasons, and then state that 

“notwithstanding the above,” the party will respond to the discovery request, subject 

to or without waiving such objection. Such a boilerplate objection and answer

preserves nothing, and constitutes only a waste of effort and the resources of both the 

parties and the court. Further, such practice leaves the requesting party uncertain 

as to whether the question has actually been fully answered, or only a portion of it 

has been answered. Civil Discovery Standards, 2004 A.B.A. Sec. Lit. 18. Counsel 

shall include in the answer a clear statement that all responsive 

documents/information identified have in fact been produced/provided, or 

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2023 Page 2 of 9
otherwise describe the category of documents/ information that have been 

withheld on the basis of the objection. 

Objections Based upon Privilege

d. Generalized objections asserting attorney-client privilege or work 

product doctrine also do not comply with local rules. Local Rule 26.1(e)(2)(B) requires 

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

asserted, as well as identifying such things as the nature and subject matter of the 

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

relationship to each other, among others. Parties are instructed to review this Local 

Rule carefully, and refrain from objections in the form of: “Objection. This 

information is protected by attorney/client and/or work product privilege.” 

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

e. Corporations are not entitled to review of anticipatory relevance 

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

the scope of a deposition notice shall be timely served (not filed) in advance of the 

deposition. See King v. Pratt & Whitney, 161 F.R.D. 475 (S.D. Fla. 1995); New World 

Network Ltd. v. M/V Norwegian Sea, 2007 WL 1068124, at *2-3 (S.D. Fla. 2007). 

Sequencing and Timing of Discovery

f. The parties are reminded to comply with Rule 26(d)(3) that grants all 

parties the right to sequence their own discovery, which means that one party’s 

discovery does not require any other party to delay its discovery. The Court regularly 

enforces this Rule. Relatedly, the parties shall not wait until the end of the discovery 

period to begin taking any depositions. The failure to complete depositions before the 

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2023 Page 3 of 9
cutoff when that occurs is not grounds for good cause to extend the discovery period. 

To that end, the Court will strictly enforce Rule 26(a)(1) that sets forth the “Required 

Disclosures” that shall be made at the inception of the discovery period. If a party 

receives inadequate or untimely disclosures that matter shall be promptly raised with 

the Court, after conferral and if agreement is not timely reached on resolution. This 

Rule contemplates that the most relevant documents from each party shall be 

disclosed and produced at an early stage of the case, at which point relevant 

depositions should be scheduled. The Court will compel supplemental depositions in 

the event that Rule 26(a)(1) was not properly followed. 

Burden to Sustain Objections

g. In the event of an unresolved discovery dispute, to show that the 

requested discovery is objectionable the burden is on the objecting party to 

demonstrate with specificity how the objected-to request is unreasonable. Rossbach 

v. Rundle, 128 F. Supp. 2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2000); Dunkin’ Donuts, Inc. v. Mary’s 

Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001); Milinazzo v. State Farm Ins. Co.,

247 F.R.D. 691, 695 (S.D. Fla. 2007). Failure to satisfy this burden will result in entry 

of an order compelling discovery under Rule 37. Failure to show that the objecting 

party’s position was substantially justified may result in entry of monetary sanctions 

under that Rule. If the burden to sustain an objection is satisfied, the requesting 

party will have to show with specificity how the information is relevant and 

necessary, and proportional to the particular needs of the case. Henderson v. Holiday 

CVS, L.L.C., 269 F.R.D. 682, 686 (S.D. Fla. 2010); Lombardi v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.,

2015 WL 12085849, at *1 (S.D. Fla. 2015) (citing 2015 Amdt. Rule 26(b)). 

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2023 Page 4 of 9
2. If a bona fide discovery dispute arises notwithstanding these guidelines, the 

parties must first confer in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute in compliance 

with S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(a)(3). Counsel must under this Local Rule certify that good 

faith efforts were made. An adequate certificate of conference almost always requires 

at least one, if not more, personal communications between counsel. Note, 

especially, that un-responded to emails are not enough to satisfy counsel’s 

obligations under this Rule. The Court will deem an issue waived if counsel fails 

to abide by this obligation or fails to certify compliance with the Rule. 

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

26.1(g)(2). The Court strictly enforces this Rule, and interprets the twenty-eightday window as the opportunity during which good faith resolution efforts must be 

made (subject to the seven-day agreed extension permitted by the rule). See also 

Local Rule 26.1(g)(2)(D). Unapproved extensions agreed to by the parties shall not 

be recognized. The Court also enforces Rule 26.1(d) that requires that all discovery, 

including resolution of discovery disputes, be fully completed prior to the expiration 

of the discovery cutoff. The parties are generally free to engage in agreed-upon 

discovery after the cutoff date; but under Rule 26.1(d) no Court intervention or 

remedy will be available to either party after the cutoff date. 

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2023 Page 5 of 9
3. Except as provided below, discovery disputes shall not be raised by 

filing substantive discovery motions under Rule 37. The briefing provision 

in Amended Rule 26.1(g)(3) shall thus not apply for purposes of this action.

a. Any substantive discovery motion filed on the docket shall be Stricken.1

In lieu of traditional motion practice, a regular discovery calendar shall be held 

every Thursday, from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., at the James Lawrence King 

Federal Justice Building, 99 NE 4th Street, Tenth Floor, Courtroom 5, Miami, Florida 

33132. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ordinarily, no more than thirty (30) minutes of argument per side is permitted. 

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

discovery calendar, the movant will file a Motion for Hearing reflecting the confirmed 

date and time. This motion shall also set forth the category of the discovery matters

to be heard and the status of the parties’ pre-filing efforts as to that issue/request. 

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

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

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

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

the docket for the District Judge’s consideration. 

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2023 Page 6 of 9
The Motion for Hearing shall include a certificate of conferral that fully complies with 

Local Rule 7.1(a)(3). Failure to do so may result in denial of the motion and 

cancellation of the hearing unless timely cured.

d. Apart from filing the motion for hearing, the moving party(ies) shall 

provide the undersigned a copy of all source materials relevant to the discovery 

dispute, via hand-delivery or through a scanned PDF document that is emailed to the 

CM/ECF mailbox (torres@flsd.uscourts.gov), no later than noon on the Monday

preceding the noticed hearing. (For example, if the dispute concerns interrogatories, 

the interrogatories at issue and the response thereto, shall be provided to the 

undersigned’s Chambers.) A proposed Order on the issues raised shall also be 

submitted together with the source materials, which shall set forth the specific relief 

requested for each request/category of request. Failure to comply with all three 

elements of this procedure may be grounds to cancel the hearing. If the 

parties are able to resolve/narrow the pending disputes before the scheduled 

hearing, they should promptly advise the Court.

e. With respect to issues involving privilege disputes, the party with the 

burden of persuasion on a privilege claim has the obligation to present to the Court, 

no later than the time of the hearing, sworn evidence if necessary to satisfy that 

burden. The failure to present that sworn evidence by the scheduled hearing may be 

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

sworn evidence should be included with the materials emailed to counsel, as well as 

filed on the docket as a notice of filing. 

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2023 Page 7 of 9
f. Following the hearing, a “motion for entry” of an amended proposed 

order (that reflects the Court’s rulings during the hearing) will be filed on the docket 

no later than two business days thereafter. 

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

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

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

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

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

preserve an objection as per this Order may be deemed a waiver. But if a good faith 

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

notice of objections, followed by a good faith conference to resolve the dispute, will be 

sufficient to preserve the issues involved without fear of waiver prior to the Court 

resolving the dispute at a discovery conference. If the parties do not thereafter reach 

agreement to resolve the dispute, the objecting party shall schedule the matter at the 

next available discovery calendar. Rule 37, however, continues to apply to such 

objections; thus if the Court finds that the objections were not substantially justified 

the failure to comply with a timely served Rule 30 deposition notice may be sanctioned 

appropriately. Consistent with paragraph 1.e above, any objections to the scope of a 

Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice shall only be adjudicated after the taking of the 

deposition so that a sufficient record exists with which to analyze the dispute.

5. To reiterate, the Court expects all parties to engage in reasonable compromise 

to facilitate the resolution of their discovery disputes. The Federal Rules contemplate 

that discovery in most cases should be conducted without court intervention. The 

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2023 Page 8 of 9
Court may impose sanctions, monetary or otherwise, if the Court determines 

discovery is being improperly sought or is being withheld in bad faith or without 

substantial justification. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 6th day of 

DECEMBER, 2023.

 /s/ Edwin G. Torres 

EDWIN G. TORRES 

 Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:22-cv-22853-BB Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2023 Page 9 of 9