UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No: 22-CV-81569-CANNON/REINHART

LEGACY KNIGHT STRATEGIC

OPPORTUNITIES FUND-PARALLEL

SERIES,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM BEAU WRIGLEY JR ET AL.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

 

STANDING DISCOVERY ORDER FOR

MAGISTRATE JUDGE BRUCE REINHART

The following procedures are designed to help the parties and the Court work 

together to accomplish civil discovery without undue delay and unnecessary expense.

I. GENERAL DISCOVERY PRINCIPLES

A. Rule 26(b)(1) – Relevance and Proportionality

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), as amended on December 1, 2015, 

defines the scope of permissible discovery:

Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is 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.

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2023 Page 1 of 15
Page 2 of 15

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Therefore, an objection that a discovery request is not 

reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence is based upon an outdated 

discovery standard. An objection based on relevance or proportionality must include 

a specific explanation describing why the request lacks relevance and/or why the 

requested discovery is disproportionate in light of the factors listed in Rule 26(b)(1).

B. Rule 26(c) – Protective Orders

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) permits the Court to enter a protective 

order “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or 

undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). A motion seeking relief under Rule 

26(c) must include a specific explanation, supported by facts, demonstrating how 

complying with the discovery request would cause annoyance, embarrassment, 

oppression, or undue burden or cost. The Court will reject a conclusory unsupported 

statement that Rule 26(c) relief is warranted. See S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(g)(3).

C. Non-Waiver 

Discovery is a dynamic process. What is relevant or proportionate or 

cumulative or unduly burdensome can change as a case moves forward. The Court 

recognizes that a party may be unwilling to compromise its position on a particular 

discovery request because of concern that the concession will be deemed to waive a 

future objection or a future demand for related discovery. To eliminate this concern, 

the Court evaluates all discovery requests and responses individually. Therefore, by 

responding, in whole or in part, to a discovery request, a party does not waive any 

objection to a future request. Likewise, by agreeing to limit a discovery demand, a 

party does not waive its right to seek additional discovery in the future. Parties need 

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2023 Page 2 of 15
Page 3 of 15

not serve a response or objection that specifically reserves their rights or disavows a 

waiver.

D. Deposition Scheduling

Parties are expected to confer in good faith to schedule depositions at times 

convenient for all parties. If the parties cannot agree on a date after reasonable 

conferral, the requesting party may unilaterally schedule the deposition, with the 

notice required by Local Rule 26.1(h).

E. Rule 26(g) Certification

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g) requires a lawyer or party requesting 

discovery, responding to a discovery request, or objecting to a discovery request to

sign the relevant pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g). The signature “certifies that to the 

best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable 

inquiry” (1) any required disclosures are complete and correct and (2) any request, 

response, or objection is (i) consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

(including the proportionality requirement of Rule 26(b)(1)), (ii) not for an improper 

purpose, such as delay or needless increase in litigation cost, and (iii) not otherwise 

unreasonable “considering the needs of the case, prior discovery in the case, the 

amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the action.” Id. 

Rule 26(g) imposes an affirmative duty on counsel to conduct a reasonable inquiry 

prior to serving discovery or objecting to discovery, and to conform discovery to what 

is reasonably necessary to the case at hand. The procedures outlined in this Order 

are designed to help counsel ensure that their Rule 26(g) certifications are accurate, 

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2023 Page 3 of 15
Page 4 of 15

and to provide the Court with a complete and accurate record to assess discovery 

behavior, including requests for sanctions based on discovery violations.

II. DISCOVERY OBJECTIONS

A. Identifying Withheld Materials

Objections to Requests for Production must “state whether any responsive 

materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

34(b)(2)(C). When a party asserts a discovery objection, the Court assumes that a 

Rule 26(g) compliant search has been conducted and that responsive materials exist. 

If a party interposes an objection and later asserts that no responsive 

documents exist, the Court will impose sanctions. If a party asserts that it 

would be too burdensome to search for responsive materials, the objection should 

make clear that no search has been conducted and explain why a search would be 

unduly burdensome.

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.”). The parties also shall not make 

general objections that are not tied to a particular discovery request. The Court will 

strike these general objections.

C. Vague, Overly Broad, and Unduly Burdensome

Objections that state that a discovery request is “vague, overly broad, or 

unduly burdensome” are, standing alone, meaningless, and will be stricken by the

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2023 Page 4 of 15
Page 5 of 15

Court. If a party believes that a request or a term is vague, that party must first ask 

for clarification from opposing counsel prior to objecting on vagueness grounds.

An objection that a discovery request is “overbroad” is ambiguous. If the 

objecting party asserts that the request seeks materials that are not relevant, the 

objection should say so. Alternatively, if the objector asserts that the request seeks 

materials that are relevant but excessive or cumulative, the objection should state 

that the request is disproportionate. 

If a party believes a discovery request seeks irrelevant information, is 

disproportionate, or is unduly burdensome, that party shall confer in good faith with 

opposing counsel to narrow the scope of the request before asserting these objections. 

The objecting party nevertheless shall respond as to those matters for which the scope 

or burden is not contested. For example, if there is an objection based upon the scope 

of the request, such as time frame or geographic location, discovery should be 

provided as to the time period or locations that are not disputed. Thus, if discovery 

is sought nationwide for a ten-year period, and the responding party objects on the 

grounds that only a five-year period limited to activities in the State of Florida is 

appropriate, the responding party shall provide responsive discovery falling within 

the five-year period as to the State of Florida.

A party objecting on any of these grounds must explain the specific and 

particular way in which a request is vague, seeks irrelevant information, is 

disproportionate, or is unduly burdensome. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) and 

34(b)(2)(B); see also Dem. Rep. Congo v. Air Capital Grp., LLC, No. 12-CIV-20607, 

2018 WL 324976, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2018) (J. Torres) (quoting Sallah v. 

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2023 Page 5 of 15
Page 6 of 15

Worldwide Clearing LLC, 855 F. Supp. 2d 1364, 1376 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (J. 

Rosenbaum)) (“‘A party objecting on these grounds must explain the specific and 

particular way in which a request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome. In 

addition, claims of undue burden should be supported by a statement (generally an 

affidavit) with specific information demonstrating how the request is overly 

burdensome.’”). Unless impractical, an objection that ESI discovery based on 

proposed search terms is unduly burdensome should be supported by evidence of the 

expected number of hits or other similar evidence.

D. Formulaic Objections Followed by an Answer

A party shall not recite a formulaic objection followed by an answer. It has 

become common practice for a party to object to a discovery request, and then state 

that "notwithstanding the above," the party will respond to the discovery request, 

subject to or without waiving such objection. “Objecting but answering subject to the 

objection is not one of the allowed choices” under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Spadaro v. City of Miramar, No. 11-61607-CIV, 2012 WL 12862641, at *4 (S.D. Fla. 

Apr. 25, 2012) (J. Seltzer) (citation omitted). Such a response improperly leaves the 

requesting party uncertain as to whether the discovery request (as propounded) has 

actually been fully answered, whether the response relates only to the request as 

unilaterally narrowed by the responding party, and whether the responding party is 

withholding any responsive materials. See Consumer Elecs. Ass'n v. Compras & Buys 

Magazine, Inc., No. 08-21085-CIV, 2008 WL 4327253, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2008) 

(J. Simonton). 

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2023 Page 6 of 15
Page 7 of 15

For a Request for Production, the proper practice is to (1) state whether 

documents are being provided in response to the request and identify those 

documents by sequential number or category, and (2) state whether any responsive 

documents are being withheld, and if so the specific legal basis for that objection. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C) (objection must “state whether any responsive materials 

are being withheld on the basis of that objection”); S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(e)(6) (“Each 

page of any document produced in a non-electronic format must be individually 

identified by a sequential number that will allow the document to be identified but 

that does not impair review of the document.”). Samples of proper objections include:

Defendant is providing documents marked as Defense 1–250, as well as 

a USB drive containing emails for the following custodians in native 

format: ______. Defendant has identified other documents which are 

responsive to the request as propounded, but Defendant asserts that 

those additional documents are irrelevant to the claims and defenses in 

this matter because _____.

Plaintiff is providing documents marked as Plaintiff 1–100. Plaintiff 

has identified other documents which are responsive to the request as 

propounded, but Plaintiff asserts that production of those materials 

would be disproportionate to the needs of the case because the burden 

and expense of the proposed discovery outweigh its likely benefit for the 

following reasons: ______.

For an Interrogatory, stating both an objection and an answer waives the 

objection. See, e.g., Tardif v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, No. 2:09-

CV-537-FTM-29, 2011 WL 1627165, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2011) (“[W]henever an 

answer accompanies an objection, the objection is deemed waived, and the answer, if 

responsive, stands.”); but see Proflex Prods., Inc. v. Protecto Wrap Co., No. 12-21280-

CIV, 2013 WL 12064531, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 18, 2013) (J. Hunt) (holding that where 

discovery request can be subdivided without ambiguity, a party may object to a 

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2023 Page 7 of 15
Page 8 of 15

portion of the interrogatory specifically while also providing an answer to the nonobjectionable portion.). 

E. Objections “To The Extent That”

Parties often object to a discovery request “to the extent that” it seeks 

irrelevant or privileged evidence. This objection adds nothing because it does not 

address whether, in fact, the request calls for non-discoverable evidence. If a party 

believes a discovery request seeks irrelevant or privileged evidence, the party must 

say so.

F. Production at an Indeterminate Time

It has also become a common practice to respond to Requests for Production by 

saying that the party will either produce responsive materials, or make those 

materials available for inspection, at an indeterminate future date. Such a response 

is not a response and only serves to delay the discovery process. Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 34(b)(2)(B) states that a production must be “completed no later than the 

time for inspection specified in the request or another reasonable time specified in 

the response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). Hence, unless all unobjectionable materials 

are being produced contemporaneously with the written response, the response must 

specify a date by which production will be completed; the respondent may adopt the 

date proposed in the request or may propose its own reasonable time, after 

consultation with opposing counsel. 

The Court strongly encourages parties to engage in rolling production of 

documents. If a rolling production is to occur, the parties shall confer about a 

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2023 Page 8 of 15
Page 9 of 15

production schedule, including the order in which categories of documents will be 

produced, and a good faith estimate of the date by which production will be completed.

Whether by rolling production or otherwise, a final production date more than 30 

days after the response deadline (i.e., generally 60 days after the request is served) 

is presumptively unreasonable under Rule 34(b)(2)(B). That being said, the parties 

will be in the best position to assess the timing of discovery in a particular case. 

Therefore, the parties may agree to a longer period for production, without leave of 

Court. In the absence of agreement among the parties, if the production will not be 

completed within 30 days of the response deadline, a motion for enlargement of time 

should be filed by the responding party. The motion shall include a good cause 

explanation for why production cannot be completed within that time period, and a 

proposed schedule for completing the production. The opposing party shall respond 

within 72 hours.

G. Privilege Objections — Requests for Production and Interrogatories

Generalized objections asserting attorney-client privilege or work product 

doctrine also do not comply with the 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, inter alia, the nature and subject matter of the communication 

at issue and the identities of the parties to the communication. S.D. Fla. L.R. 

26.1(e)(2)(B). Local Rule 26.1(e)(2)(C) requires a privilege log. S.D. Fla. L.R. 

26.1(e)(2)(C). If a general objection of privilege is made without attaching a proper 

privilege log, the objection of privilege may be deemed waived. The production of nonprivileged materials should not be delayed while a party is preparing a privilege log.

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2023 Page 9 of 15
Page 10 of 15

H. Objections Based upon Privilege – Depositions

In general, it is improper for a party to object to a noticed deposition with a 

blanket assertion of privilege. See S.E.C. v. Merkin, 283 F.R.D. 689, 698 (S.D. Fla.

2012) (J. Goodman), objections overruled, 283 F.R.D. 699 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (J. Graham). 

Rather, assertions of privilege during a deposition should be raised on a question-byquestion basis, thus providing the Court with a record from which it can determine 

whether each assertion of privilege was proper. 

Similarly, the Court typically will decline to rule on objections made in advance 

of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of a corporate representative. “In situations where a 

particular [Rule 30(b)(6)] noticed topic is alleged to be outside the scope of Rule 26 

discovery . . . the remedy . . . does not involve this Court preemptively reviewing 

arguments on relevance or overbreadth.” Balu v. Costa Crociere S.P.A., No. 11-60031-

CIV, 2011 WL 3359681, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2011) (J. Torres) (emphasis in 

original) (quoting New World Network Ltd. v. M/V Norwegian Sea, 2007 WL 

1068124, at *2–3 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2007)) (noting that “‘the Rule is intended to be 

self-executing and must operate extrajudicially’”). Rather than the court intervening 

prior to the scheduled deposition, “the better procedure to follow” is for a corporate 

deponent to object to a topic as the questions are being posed, and for the opposing 

party to move to compel additional answers, if necessary, after the deposition. Balu, 

2011 WL 3359681, at *4. This procedure “will give the Court a factual record with 

which to judge whether a particular topic or question asked should be compelled or 

not.” Id. In sum, while a lawyer can object to a deposition question and instruct a 

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2023 Page 10 of 15
Page 11 of 15

Rule 30(b)(6) witness not to answer on relevance grounds, if the Court overrules the 

objection, the Court will assess fees and costs for reconvening the 30(b)(6) deposition.

I. Instructions to the Responding Party

A party propounding discovery cannot impose legal obligations on the 

respondent through Instructions. Discovery is governed by the rules of Court, which 

cannot be unilaterally supplemented by a party. Any Instruction that purports to 

impose a duty not otherwise mandated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the 

Local Rules of this Court has no legal effect and only serves to waste the time and 

resources of the Court and the parties.

III. PROCEDURES FOR DISCOVERY DISPUTES

A. Pre-Hearing Communication

If a discovery dispute arises, counsel must actually speak to one another

(in person or via telephone) and engage in reasonable compromise in a genuine

effort to resolve their discovery disputes before seeking Court intervention.

B. Hearing Procedures

If, after conferring, the parties are unable to resolve their discovery disputes

without Court intervention, Magistrate Judge Reinhart will set the matter for a

hearing using the following procedures. No discovery motions shall be filed until after 

the parties have engaged in this process. If the dispute is not resolved at the 

discovery hearing, the Court will consider authorizing the filing of an appropriate 

discovery motion, which will then implicate the sanctions provisions of Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5). 

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2023 Page 11 of 15
Page 12 of 15

The moving party may request a discovery hearing by sending an email to 

reinhart@flsd.uscourts.gov. The subject line of the email shall be “Request for 

Discovery Hearing.” The email shall provide the Court with two afternoons in the 

following seven business days when all parties are available. The email shall state 

the amount of time that the parties anticipate needing for the hearing. The email 

shall be copied to all counsel, and shall certify that the moving party has conferred 

with opposing counsel and confirmed opposing counsel’s availability on the proposed 

dates. The Court will enter an order setting the hearing. Counsel are required to 

appear in person at the discovery hearing unless otherwise excused by the Court. 

At least 48 hours prior to the scheduled hearing, the parties shall file a joint 

discovery memorandum of five pages or less (1) specifying the substance of the 

discovery matter to be heard, (2) certifying that the parties have complied with the 

pre-hearing communication requirement set forth above, and (3) attaching a copy of 

all source materials relevant to the discovery dispute (e.g., if the dispute concerns 

interrogatories, the interrogatories at issue and any responses thereto shall be 

provided to Chambers). A sample format for the joint discovery memorandum is 

attached as Appendix 1 to this Order. This procedure does not apply when 

non-parties object to subpoenas served upon them.

C. Encouraging Participation by Less-Experienced Lawyers

Ordinarily, only one lawyer for each party may argue at the discovery hearing. 

Nevertheless, the Court has a strong commitment to supporting the development of 

our next generation of lawyers. The Court encourages parties and senior attorneys 

to allow less-experienced practitioners the opportunity to argue in court. A party 

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2023 Page 12 of 15
Page 13 of 15

should advise the Court prior to the beginning of the hearing if a lawyer of 5 or fewer 

years of experience will be arguing the matter. In that event, the Court will allow 

multiple lawyers to argue on behalf of that party.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida, on

November 9, 2023

BRUCE E. REINHART

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2023 Page 13 of 15
Page 14 of 15

APPENDIX 1

The parties certify they have complied with the requirements for pre-hearing 

consultation contained in the Court’s Standing Discovery Order. Despite good faith 

efforts to resolve their differences, the following issues require resolution by the Court

1. The parties dispute the appropriate time frame for Plaintiff’s Interrogatory 

Nos. 1, 5, 6-9. Plaintiff asserts that the time frame should be limited to ____ 

because [legal basis for position, such as relevance, undue burden, 

disproportionate]. Defendant believes the proper time frame is _____.

2. Defendant objects to Request for Production 3. Defendant has produced ____ 

in response to the Request, believes that additional documents exist, but 

objects to the production of those documents because _____. Plaintiff 

believes that all the materials sought by the Requests are 

[relevant/proportional/not unduly burdensome] because ______.

3. Plaintiff objects to Request for Production 9, which calls for production of 

voluminous documents/electronic communications. Plaintiff asserts that it 

will be unduly burdensome and costly to conduct searches to identify if 

responsive documents exist. Defendant asserts that, to minimize cost and 

burden, it has proposed to limit the time frame of the request and has offered 

search terms as follows:_____.

4. Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory 7 because it would require disclosure of 

communications and materials protected by the attorney-client/work 

product privilege. Defendant asserts that no privilege exists because ____.

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2023 Page 14 of 15
Page 15 of 15

Copies of the relevant discovery requests and related pleadings are attached, as 

follows:

1. Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories and Defendant’s Response and Objections

2. Defendant’s Request for Production and Plaintiff’s Objections

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2023 Page 15 of 15