UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 0:22-CV-62090-WILLIAMS/AUGUSTIN-BIRCH

CHRISTOPHER ALLEN ROLDAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PAGE BROTHERS ASSOCIATES, INC., 

Defendant. 

________________________________________/ 

ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY PROCEDURES

The Honorable Kathleen M. Williams, United States District Judge, has referred discovery 

matters in this case to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. The parties are hereby 

notified that the following procedures apply to discovery disputes before this Court. These 

procedures are designed to assist the parties and the Court in working together to timely and fairly 

resolve discovery disputes without undue delay and unnecessary expense. The procedures in this 

Order do not relieve parties of the requirements of any Federal Rule of Civil Procedure or Local 

Rule except as noted. 

The Court expects all parties to act courteously and professionally and to engage in 

reasonable compromise to facilitate the resolution of discovery disputes. The Court may impose 

appropriate sanctions upon a finding of failure to comply with this Order or of other discovery 

misconduct. 

I. PROCEDURES FOR DISCOVERY DISPUTES

A. Pre-Hearing Conferral. If a discovery dispute arises, counsel must actually speak 

to one another (in person or via telephone or videoconference) in a genuine effort to resolve the 

Case 0:22-cv-62090-KMW Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2022 Page 1 of 5
2 

dispute before seeking Court intervention. Email correspondence or leaving a voicemail message 

does not alone constitute adequate conferral. The Court expects all parties to act in good faith to 

attempt to resolve a discovery dispute prior to scheduling a hearing. Even after a hearing has been 

scheduled, the Court expects the parties to continue to pursue a resolution of disputed matters. If 

those efforts are successful, counsel should contact Chambers as soon as practicable to timely 

cancel the hearing. If the parties resolve some, but not all, of the disputed matters before the 

hearing, counsel shall timely contact Chambers to provide notice about which issues are no longer 

in dispute. 

B. Scheduling a Discovery Hearing. If, after conferring, the parties are unable to 

resolve a discovery dispute without Court intervention, then a party may seek a hearing by 

contacting Chambers at (954) 769-5460 to place the matter on an available discovery calendar. 

The Court will provide the telephoning party with available dates and times for a hearing. That 

party shall confer with opposing counsel to confirm availability and then contact Chambers again 

to finalize the hearing date and time. The Court will thereafter enter an Order scheduling the

hearing. The longer a party waits to contact Chambers to finalize a hearing date, the more likely 

it is that the hearing date will no longer be available. At the Court’s option, the hearing may be 

held in person or by video conference. 

C. Discovery Memoranda. On the same day that a party finalizes a hearing date, that 

party shall file through the Court’s electronic filing system (CM/ECF) a concise discovery 

memorandum of no more than three pages. The discovery memorandum shall (1) state with 

specificity the substance of the discovery matter(s) to be heard; (2) include citation to the best 

supporting legal authority; (3) certify that the parties have complied with the pre-hearing conferral 

requirement set forth above; and (4) attach a copy of all source materials relevant to the discovery 

Case 0:22-cv-62090-KMW Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2022 Page 2 of 5
3 

dispute (e.g., if the dispute concerns interrogatories, the interrogatories at issue and any responses 

thereto shall be attached). The responding party shall file a responsive memorandum of no more 

than three pages within two business days of receiving the discovery memorandum. The initiating 

party may file a reply memorandum of no more than two pages within one business day of 

receiving the responsive memorandum. 

D. Discovery Motions. No party may file a discovery motion, including a motion to 

compel or motion for protective order, unless permitted to do so by the Court. The Court will 

strike unauthorized discovery motions. 

E. Participation by Less-Experienced Attorneys. Ordinarily, only one attorney for 

each party may argue at a discovery hearing. However, the Court has a strong commitment to 

supporting the development of our next generation of attorneys and encourages the participation 

of less-experienced attorneys during court proceedings. Should a party advise the Court prior to 

the beginning of a hearing that an attorney with five or fewer years of experience will be arguing 

a matter, the Court will permit multiple attorneys to argue on that party’s behalf.

II. SCOPE OF DISCOVERY AND OBJECTIONS

A. Rule 26(b)(1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) defines the scope of 

permissible discovery as follows:

Parties 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, considering 

the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the 

parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the 

importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or 

expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within 

the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. 

Any objection that a discovery request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible 

evidence is an objection that is based on an outdated discovery standard. Such an objection is 

Case 0:22-cv-62090-KMW Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2022 Page 3 of 5
4 

meaningless and will be found meritless by this Court. An objection based on relevance or 

proportionality must include a specific explanation describing why the requested discovery lacks 

relevance and/or why the requested discovery is disproportionate in light of the factors set out in 

Rule 26(b)(1). 

B. Boilerplate or General Objections. The parties shall not make nonspecific, 

boilerplate objections. See, e.g., S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(e)(2)(A) (“Where an objection is made to any 

interrogatory or subpart thereof or to any production request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

34, the objection shall state with specificity all grounds.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) and

34(b)(2)(B). The parties also shall not make general objections that are not tied to a particular 

discovery request. Such objections are meaningless and will be found meritless by this Court.

C. Vague, Overly Broad, and Unduly Burdensome. Objections stating that a 

discovery request is “vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome” are, standing alone, 

meaningless and will be found meritless by this Court. A party objecting on these grounds shall

specifically explain the particular way in which the request is vague, overly broad, or unduly 

burdensome. In addition, claims of undue burden shall be supported by a statement (generally an 

affidavit) with specific information demonstrating how the request is overly burdensome. 

If a party believes that a request or a term is vague, that party shall attempt to obtain 

clarification from opposing counsel prior to objecting on the ground of vagueness. If a party asserts 

that a request seeks irrelevant material, the objection shall say so and explain why. If a party

asserts that a request seeks material that is relevant but excessive or cumulative, the objection shall

state that the request is disproportionate and explain why. If a party believes that a discovery 

request seeks information that is irrelevant, unduly broad, burdensome, or disproportionate, that

party shall confer in good faith with opposing counsel to narrow the scope of the request before 

Case 0:22-cv-62090-KMW Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2022 Page 4 of 5
5 

asserting an objection and shall provide discovery as to those matters for which scope or burden 

is not contested. 

D. Formulaic Objections Followed by an Answer. The parties shall not recite a 

formulaic objection followed by an answer to the request. It has become common practice for a 

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

objection, the party will respond to the discovery request, subject to or without waiving the 

objection. This type of objection and answer preserves nothing and serves only to waste the time 

and resources of the parties and the Court. Furthermore, such practice leaves the requesting party 

uncertain as to whether the question has been fully answered. 

E. Objections Based on Privilege. Generalized objections asserting attorney-client 

privilege or work-product doctrine do not comply with the Local Rules. The parties are instructed 

to carefully review and comply with Local Rule 26.1(e)(2) when asserting a privilege. If a party 

fails to prepare a privilege log when required, the Court may deem an objection based on privilege 

waived. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 17th day of

November, 2022. 

 ___________________________________ 

 PANAYOTTA AUGUSTIN-BIRCH

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 0:22-cv-62090-KMW Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2022 Page 5 of 5