UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-CV-61992-RUIZ/STRAUSS 

AVINI HEALTH CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v. 

BIOGENUS LLC,

 Defendant. 

 / 

DISCOVERY PROCEDURES ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the referral of all discovery matters in this case by 

the Honorable Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The 

parties are encouraged to carefully review this Order. Failure to comply with any part of this Order 

may result in the imposition of sanctions upon the parties and/or counsel. It is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the parties shall follow the following discovery 

procedures in this case:

I. DISCOVERY OBJECTIONS

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. 

Case 0:22-cv-61992-RAR Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/12/2023 Page 1 of 8
2 

Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence 

to be discoverable. 

Therefore, an objection that a discovery request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible 

evidence is based upon an outdated discovery standard. This Court will find such an objection, 

standing alone, to be meritless. 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. Specific Objections

All objections to discovery requests must be specific. The parties shall not make 

generalized, vague, or boilerplate objections. Nonspecific objections do not comply with the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules and will not be sustained by this Court. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) (“The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with 

specificity.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B) (“For each item or category, the response must either 

state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state with specificity 

the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons.” (emphasis added)); S.D. Fla. L.R. 

26.1. 

C. Vague, Overbroad, and Unduly Burdensome

Objections that state that a discovery request is “vague, overbroad, or unduly 

burdensome” are, standing alone, meaningless, and will be stricken by this Court. 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. 

An objection that a discovery request is “overbroad,” without stating more, is inadequate. 

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

should say so and should explain why. Alternatively, if the objector asserts that the request seeks 

Case 0:22-cv-61992-RAR Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/12/2023 Page 2 of 8
3

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 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.

1

 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 Democratic Republic of 

Congo v. Air Capital Grp., LLC, No. 12-CIV-20607, 2018 WL 324976, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 

2018) (quoting Sallah v. Worldwide Clearing LLC, 855 F. Supp. 2d 1364, 1376 (S.D. Fla. 2012) 

(“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 

1 The parties’ conferral before objections are asserted does not obviate the need for the parties to 

confer again before requesting a discovery hearing based on those objections.

Case 0:22-cv-61992-RAR Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/12/2023 Page 3 of 8
4 

ESI discovery based on proposed search terms is unduly burdensome should be supported by 

evidence (e.g., an affidavit) of the expected number of hits. 

II. PROCEDURES FOR DISCOVERY DISPUTES

A. Conferral 

If a discovery dispute arises, counsel must confer by actually speaking to one another (in 

person or via telephone) and engage in a genuine effort to resolve the discovery dispute before 

seeking Court intervention. Conferring via email or text message is not sufficient. The Court 

expects all parties to engage in reasonable compromise to facilitate the resolution of discovery 

disputes. As part of their conferral, the parties should specifically discuss each and every

discovery request and objection at issue before seeking Court intervention. 

B. Time for Seeking Court Intervention

A party seeking Court intervention regarding a discovery dispute must do so in accordance 

with the next section (Section C) within 28 days of when grounds for relief occur. In other words, 

parties must comply with Local Rule 26.1(g)(2)(A). Failure to comply with the time requirements 

of Local Rule 26.1(g)(2)(A) may result in automatic denial of the relief requested.

Moreover, absent exceptional, unavoidable circumstances, any party seeking Court 

intervention regarding a discovery dispute must do so (in accordance with the next section)

at least 7 days prior to the discovery cutoff. Failure to seek Court intervention at least 7 days

prior to the discovery cutoff may result in automatic denial of the relief requested.

C. Hearing Procedures 

If, after conferring, the parties are unable to resolve their discovery dispute without

Court intervention, the Court may set the matter for a hearing pursuant to the following procedures. 

Case 0:22-cv-61992-RAR Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/12/2023 Page 4 of 8
5

No written discovery motions2 concerning discovery disputes between parties shall be filed 

unless specifically authorized by Order.

3

The moving party may request a discovery hearing – only after adequate good faith 

conferral regarding each and every issue – by filing a “Notice of Request for Discovery Hearing” 

(not a motion). The notice shall briefly describe (in one or two sentences) the nature of the 

discovery dispute (e.g., the type of discovery at issue and the number of requests at issue), shall 

state the case’s discovery deadline, shall briefly describe the efforts made to confer, shall provide 

the Court with at least three alternative dates within the ensuing two weeks that both counsel are 

available for a hearing (noting availability on each date as morning, afternoon, or all day), and 

shall state the amount of time that the parties anticipate needing for the hearing. The notice shall 

not include argument for the moving party’s position.4 The notice shall certify that the moving 

party has conferred with opposing counsel regarding all issues and confirmed opposing 

2 Discovery motions encompass any motion seeking relief under Rule 26 or Rule 37, including 

motions to compel, motions for protective order, and motions for discovery-related sanctions, as 

well as motions to exclude or strike an expert who was not timely disclosed (which is different 

from a Daubert motion, which is not a discovery motion). A motion to extend time to respond to 

discovery is also a discovery motion. Rarely, if ever, should a party need to seek Court intervention 

to address a dispute regarding an extension of time to respond to discovery. The Court expects the 

parties to agree to reasonable extensions to respond to discovery without seeking Court 

intervention. Regardless, to be clear, the Procedures for Discovery Disputes in this Order apply 

to all discovery motions and discovery disputes between the parties.

3 This procedure does not apply to discovery disputes between a party and a non-party. If a 

discovery dispute arises between a party and a non-party, a motion may be filed. Any such motion 

and any response thereto shall be limited to 5 pages or less (double-spaced). No reply may be filed 

absent separate Court order. In the event any discovery dispute arises with a non-party, the party 

seeking the discovery shall provide a copy of this Order to the non-party.

4 Similarly, the opposing party shall not file a response to the notice requesting a hearing. The 

opposing party shall have an opportunity to present its position in the Joint Discovery Status Report 

(discussed below) or as otherwise directed by the Court.

Case 0:22-cv-61992-RAR Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/12/2023 Page 5 of 8
6 

counsel’s availability on the proposed dates. The Court will then enter an order setting the 

hearing and/or provide further instructions. 

Where there has been a complete failure to respond to discovery by a firm, reasonable 

deadline, and where counsel has made good faith efforts (without success) to obtain that discovery, 

counsel need not obtain agreed upon dates from opposing counsel nor provide the joint discovery 

status report described below. Rather, the moving party may file a “Notice of Request for Show 

Cause Hearing” that identifies the discovery at issue (e.g., Plaintiff’s First Request for Production), 

that identifies the deadline by which production was due, and that provides three dates when the 

moving party is available for a hearing (noting availability on each date as morning, afternoon, 

or all day). The Court will generally set the matter for hearing. The Court will cancel any such

hearing upon notice from the moving party that the discovery at issue has been produced.

D. Joint Discovery Status Report 

Unless the Court sets a different timeframe in its order scheduling a discovery hearing, at 

least 48 hours prior to the scheduled hearing, the parties shall confer and file a joint discovery 

status report. The parties shall also email a courtesy copy of the joint discovery status report to 

the Court in Word format. The joint discovery status report shall set forth, for each unresolved 

discovery dispute, (1) the verbatim request; (2) the verbatim response; (3) a succinct summary 

of each party’s position (not a memorandum of law); and (4) the result of the parties’ meet and 

confer. The parties may group the discovery requests by issue, as appropriate. The information 

must be presented in chart form as set forth below. The parties must state their combined 

positions for a given request/issue on no more than one page. 

Case 0:22-cv-61992-RAR Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/12/2023 Page 6 of 8
7 

Request No. [ ]: [VERBATIM REQUEST] 

Response: [VERBATIM RESPONSE]

Movant’s Position: Opponent’s Position: [LEAVE BLANK FOR 

COURT USE]

Even after the Court has set a hearing, the parties shall continue to make every effort to 

resolve their discovery disputes, or portions of those disputes, prior to the hearing. The parties 

shall contact the undersigned’s chambers by email as soon as possible prior to the hearing if the 

parties have resolved, or narrowed, any of the disputes at issue. 

E. Payment of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs or Imposition of Other Sanctions

The Court will construe arguments made at a discovery hearing as ore tenus motions to 

compel or for a protective order and, where warranted, will require payment of the prevailing 

party’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in making or defending against the motion, 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5). The Court may also 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. 

F. 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 should advise the Court prior to the 

Case 0:22-cv-61992-RAR Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/12/2023 Page 7 of 8
8 

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.

III. STIPULATED ORDERS

When the parties have stipulated to the entry of an order, such as a stipulated confidentiality 

order, the parties shall file a joint motion for entry of the stipulated order (attaching a copy of the 

proposed stipulated order). Immediately after the motion is filed, the parties shall email a Word 

version of the proposed stipulated order to strauss@flsd.uscourts.gov. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 12th day of January 2023. 

Case 0:22-cv-61992-RAR Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/12/2023 Page 8 of 8