UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-81883-Civ-RUIZ/MCCABE

BRITTANY ROBERSON, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

HEALTH CAREER INSTITUTE LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY PROCEDURE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. In order to efficiently resolve discovery 

disputes, the parties are hereby notified that the following rules apply to discovery procedures 

before this Court. To the extent that this Order conflicts with the procedures set forth in the Local 

Rules for the Southern District of Florida, this Order takes precedence. These procedures are 

designed to assist the parties and the Court in working together to timely resolve discovery disputes 

without undue delay and unnecessary expense. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 

I. PROCEDURES FOR DISCOVERY DISPUTES

A. Pre-filing Communication: If a discovery dispute arises, the parties must actually

speak to one another, either in person, via telephone, or via Zoom to resolve their discovery 

disputes before seeking court intervention. E-mail correspondence alone does not constitute a 

sufficient conferral. As such, counsel shall discuss the available options for resolving the dispute 

without court intervention and make a concerted, good faith effort to arrive at a mutually 

acceptable resolution. The movant shall include in the motion a certificate of good faith that 

complies with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3). See S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(a)(3). 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2023 Page 1 of 5
2 

B. Discovery Motions: If the parties are unable to resolve their discovery disputes 

without court intervention, the movant shall file a discovery motion. All discovery motions shall 

be no longer than five (5) pages. The purpose of the motion is merely to frame the discovery 

issues and succinctly explain the dispute. The moving party MUST attach as exhibits any materials 

relevant to the discovery dispute (e.g., discovery demands and discovery responses), and shall 

describe the attachment pursuant to the Court’s CM/ECF procedures, Rule 3L(2). The motion 

must also cite to the best supporting legal authority. The opposing party must file a response to 

the motion, no longer than five (5) pages, within five (5) business days of service of the discovery 

motion. No reply shall be permitted. If the Court determines that a discovery hearing on the 

motion is necessary, the Court will then enter an order setting the matter for a hearing. 

 C. Pre-Hearing Discussions: The parties are encouraged to continue to pursue 

resolution of any disputed discovery matters even after a hearing is scheduled. If those efforts are 

successful, counsel should contact United States Magistrate Judge McCabe’s chambers 

(McCabe@flsd.us.courts.gov) as soon as practicable so that the hearing can be timely canceled. 

Alternatively, if the parties resolve some, but not all, of their issues before the hearing, counsel 

shall timely contact chambers to relay which issues are no longer in dispute. 

D. Appearances by Newer Attorneys: The Court is mindful that newer attorneys 

generally have fewer speaking opportunities in court than their more experienced colleagues. The 

Court strongly encourages the participation of attorneys with five years or less experience in all 

court proceedings, such as discovery hearings, especially where the attorney has been significantly 

involved in the litigation. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2023 Page 2 of 5
3 

II. DISCOVERY OBJECTIONS

A. 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. Such objections are meaningless and 

will be found meritless by the Court.

B. Vague, Overly Broad, and Unduly Burdensome: Objections that claim a discovery 

request is “vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome” are, standing alone, meaningless, and will 

be found meritless by the Court. A party objecting on those grounds must explain the specific and 

particular way in which the request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 33(b)(4) & 34(b)(2)(B). 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. See, e.g., Sallah v. Worldwide Clearing LLC, 855 F. Supp. 2d 1364, 1376 

(S.D. Fla. 2012). 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 vagueness grounds. If the 

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

say so and explain why. 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 and explain why. 

If a party believes 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 asserting these objections. That party shall also provide 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2023 Page 3 of 5
4 

discovery 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 the time frame or the 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. 

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

formulaic objection followed by an answer to the discovery request. It has become common 

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

“notwithstanding the above,” the party will respond to the discovery request, subject to or without 

waiving such objection. This type of objection and answer preserves nothing and serves only to 

waste the time and resources of the parties and the Court. Further, such practice leaves the 

requesting party uncertain as to whether the question has been fully answered or whether only a 

portion of the question has been answered. See American Bar Association, Civil Discovery 

Standards 18-19 (2004). 

D. Objections Based Upon Privilege: 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 sender and receiver of the communication and their relationship to each other. 

S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(e)(2)(B). The parties are instructed to carefully review this rule and to refrain 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2023 Page 4 of 5
5 

from general non-specific privilege objections. If a party raises a general objection of privilege 

without attaching a proper privilege log, the objection of privilege may be deemed waived.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach in the Southern District of 

Florida, this 7th day of February 2023. 

RYON M. MCCABE

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2023 Page 5 of 5