IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case No. 1:22-cv-24066-KMM 

GRACE, INC., et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY OF MIAMI, 

Defendant.

/ 

PLAINTIFF SOUTH DADE BRANCH OF THE NAACP’S RESPONSES TO 

DEFENDANT’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules 

of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (“Local Rules”), Plaintiff South Dade 

Branch of the NAACP (“Plaintiff” or “South Dade NAACP”), by and through its undersigned 

counsel, hereby responds and objects to Defendant City of Miami’s (“Defendant” or “City”) First 

Request for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), dated September 19, 2023. These responses and 

objections are made to the best of Plaintiff’s present knowledge, information, and belief, and are 

provided without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to amend, clarify, and/or supplement these responses 

and objections at a later time for any reason. This reservation, however, is not to be construed as 

an undertaking by Plaintiff of an affirmative duty to change or supplement these responses, except 

as otherwise required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Rules. 

GENERAL OBJECTIONS 

 Plaintiff states the following General Objections to the RFPs, which are hereby 

incorporated and made part of each of the following specific responses. 

1. Plaintiff objects to each RFP to the extent that it seeks to impose obligations greater 

than or inconsistent with the scope or requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 134-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023 Page 1 of 12
Local Rules, or applicable court orders. 

2. Plaintiff objects to each RFP to the extent that it calls for disclosure of information 

or documents that are not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, not relevant to the subject matter

of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

Plaintiff will only produce documents relevant to the subject matter of this action or reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

3. Plaintiff objects to each RFP to the extent that (a) it is unreasonably cumulative or 

duplicative of information provided by Plaintiff; (b) it seeks information that is obtainable from 

some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; or (c) the burden 

or expense of the proposed discovery is not proportional to the needs of this case. 

4. Plaintiff objects to each RFP to the extent that it calls for the improper disclosure 

of Plaintiff’s or any individual’s confidential information. To the extent that Plaintiff provides any

such information, Plaintiff will do so only subject to a protective order. 

5. Plaintiff objects to each RFP to the extent that it purports to require Plaintiff to 

provide information that would violate any individual’s privacy or associational rights protected 

by the U.S. Constitution or by law, contract, or public policy, or would otherwise require the 

disclosure of information in violation of any applicable law. 

6. Plaintiff objects to each RFP to the extent that it seeks information protected from 

discovery by the attorney-client privilege; the work-product doctrine; the common-interest or 

joint-defense privileges; and/or any other applicable privilege, immunity, or protection. The 

inadvertent disclosure of any information subject to such privilege or protection is not intended to 

relinquish any privilege or protection, and shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any applicable 

privilege or protection. Upon Plaintiff’s request, Defendant shall immediately return or destroy 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 134-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023 Page 2 of 12
any such information inadvertently disclosed. 

7. Plaintiff objects to each RFP to the extent that it contains characterizations, 

definitions, or assumptions. Nothing contained in or absent from Plaintiff’s responses or objections 

shall constitute, or be deemed as, an admission, concession, or agreement that Defendant’s 

characterizations, definitions, or assumptions are correct or accurate. 

8. Plaintiff objects to each RFP to the extent that it seeks information that is as readily 

available to Defendant as to Plaintiff, or that is otherwise in the possession of Defendant. 

9. Plaintiff objects to each RFP to the extent that it is vague, ambiguous, and/or 

incapable of reasonable ascertainment. Without waiver of its objections, Plaintiff has made 

reasonable interpretations of the meanings of such terms and will respond according to such 

interpretations. 

10. Plaintiff objects to each RFP to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence or 

misstates facts. Plaintiff’s responses are not intended to and shall not constitute admissions that 

any of the predicate facts stated in these RFPs are true or accurate. 

11. Plaintiff objects to each RFP to the extent that it is not reasonably limited in time 

or otherwise not limited to a time frame relevant to this litigation. To the extent that Plaintiff 

provides a response to requests that call for information outside the relevant time frame, Plaintiff 

does not waive this objection. 

12. Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s definition of “You” and “Your” as inclusive of 

information outside of Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control. 

13. Plaintiff’s objections are made without waiving: 

a. The right to object to the competence, relevance, materiality, or 

admissibility as evidence of any answer, disclosure, document, file, record, 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 134-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023 Page 3 of 12
object or information, or the subject matter thereof, in any aspect of this or 

any other action; 

b. The right to object at any time and upon any grounds to any other discovery 

requests; 

c. The right at any time and for any reason to revise, supplement, correct, add 

to, or clarify these responses; and, 

d. Any applicable privilege, including but not limited to the attorney-client 

privilege and the work-product privilege. 

14. Plaintiff’s investigation and discovery are ongoing and may uncover additional 

facts, witnesses, documents, or things that support Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff reserves all rights to 

supplement its responses and to offer such additional facts, witnesses, documents, or things at 

hearing, in future filings, or at trial. 

15. Plaintiff’s responses are provided without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to produce 

and rely on expert testimony that addresses any of the issues addressed by these requests, 

including, without limitation, any expert testimony that varies from, supplements, expands on, 

further develops, or otherwise relates in any way to any response stated here. 

SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS 

A specific response may repeat a General Objection for emphasis or for some other reason. 

However, the omission of any General Objection is neither intended to, nor should it be construed 

as, a waiver of any General Objection. 

REQUEST NO. 1: Documents relating to Your organization’s advocacy for the voting 

rights of African Americans and other voters of color in Miami as alleged in Paragraph 9 of the 

Supplemental Complaint. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 134-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023 Page 4 of 12
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overbroad and not 

reasonably limited in time. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing and its General 

Objections, Plaintiff will produce documents sufficient to show that it has engaged in advocacy 

for the voting rights of African Americans and other voters of color in Miami during the last three 

years. 

REQUEST NO. 2: Documents relating to Your organization’s mission to ensure the 

political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racebased discrimination as alleged in Paragraph 9 of the Supplemental Complaint. 

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request as overbroad and not 

reasonably limited in time. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing and its General 

Objections, Plaintiff will produce documents sufficient to demonstrate that its mission is to ensure 

the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate 

race-based discrimination. 

REQUEST NO. 3: Documents demonstrating that Your members reside in Districts 2, 3, 

and 4 of the Enjoined Plan. 

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request to the extent that it 

calls for specific information about Plaintiff’s members, which is protected from disclosure by the 

First Amendment absent a compelling need for the information. NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 

449, 460 (1958). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and its General 

Objections, Plaintiff will submit a declaration and/or provide testimony at the appropriate stage of 

this litigation verifying that it has members who reside in Districts 2, 3, and 4 of the Enjoined Plan. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 134-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023 Page 5 of 12
REQUEST NO. 4: Documents demonstrating that Your members reside in Districts 2, 3, 

and 4 of the Enacted Plan. 

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request to the extent that it 

calls for specific information about Plaintiff’s members, which is protected from disclosure by the 

First Amendment absent a compelling need for the information. NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 

449, 460 (1958). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and its General 

Objections, Plaintiff will submit a declaration and/or provide testimony at the appropriate stage of 

this litigation verifying that it has members who reside in Districts 2, 3, and 4 of the Enacted Plan.

REQUEST NO. 5: Documents relating to the proposed remedial plans P1, P2, P3, and P4 

submitted in this case on behalf of Plaintiffs, including: 

a. any communications and memoranda related to the proposed remedial plans P1, 

P2, P3, and P4; 

b. any communications and memoranda related to the methodology used in 

drawing the proposed remedial plans P1, P2, P3, and P4; 

c. any communications and memoranda related to the criteria used in drawing the 

proposed remedial plans P1, P2, P3, and P4; 

d. any communications and memoranda regarding the use of race in drawing the 

proposed remedial plans P1, P2, P3, and P4; and 

e. any reports, data, databases, analyses, feedback, instructions, or GIS files 

related to in drawing the proposed remedial plans P1, P2, P3, and P4. 

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request to the extent the

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 134-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023 Page 6 of 12
Request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product 

doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and its General Objections, 

Plaintiff will produce all non-privileged documents within its possession, custody, or control that 

are responsive to this Request. 

REQUEST NO. 6: Documents relating to the Enjoined Plan, including:

a. any communications and memoranda related to the Enjoined Plan; 

b. any communications and memoranda related to any analysis of the Enjoined 

Plan; 

c. any reports, data, databases, analyses, feedback, instructions, or GIS files 

related to the Enjoined Plan. 

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request to the extent the

Request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product 

doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and its General Objections, 

Plaintiff will produce all non-privileged documents within its possession, custody, or control that 

are responsive to this Request. 

REQUEST NO. 7: Documents relating to the Enacted Plan, including: 

a. any communications and memoranda related to the Enacted Plan; 

b. any communications and memoranda related to any analysis of the Enacted 

Plan; 

c. any reports, data, databases, analyses, feedback, instructions, or GIS files 

related to the Enacted Plan. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 134-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023 Page 7 of 12
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request to the extent the

Request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product 

doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and its General Objections, 

Plaintiff will produce all non-privileged documents within its possession, custody, or control that 

are responsive to this Request. 

REQUEST NO. 8: Documents related to Your allegations of harm, as alleged in Paragraph 

10 of the Supplemental Complaint.

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its General 

Objections, Plaintiff will produce all non-privileged documents within its possession, custody, or 

control that are responsive to this Request. 

REQUEST NO. 9: Documents related to any analysis of District 5 in the proposed 

remedial plans P1, P2, P3, and P4, and compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to the extent the Request seeks 

information protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine. Subject 

to and without waiving the foregoing objections and its General Objections, Plaintiff will produce 

all non-privileged documents within its possession, custody, or control that are responsive to this 

Request. 

REQUEST NO. 10: Documents related to any analysis of District 5 in the Enjoined Plan, 

and compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. 

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to the extent the Request seeks 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 134-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023 Page 8 of 12
information protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine. Subject 

to and without waiving the foregoing objections and its General Objections, Plaintiff will produce 

all non-privileged documents within its possession, custody, or control that are responsive to this 

Request. 

REQUEST NO. 11: Documents related to any analysis of District 5 in the Enacted Plan, 

and compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. 

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to the extent the Request seeks 

information protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine. Subject 

to and without waiving the foregoing objections and its General Objections, Plaintiff will produce 

all non-privileged documents within its possession, custody, or control that are responsive to this 

Request. 

REQUEST NO. 12: With respect to each expert that you have retained to provide expert 

testimony in this cause, any documents provided by you or your counsel to each such expert; any 

documents received by you or your counsel from such expert; any correspondence, reports, or 

written statements relating to the Complaint drafted by such expert, including all drafts and final 

versions; a current resume or CV of each such expert; any retainer agreements with each such 

expert; and any documents relating to compensation for each such expert’s services. 

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to the extent the Request seeks 

information protected by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4), which expressly protects drafts 

of expert reports and disclosures and certain communications between Plaintiffs’ counsel and 

Plaintiffs’ experts. Specifically, Rule 26(b)(4)(C) protects communications between Plaintiffs’ 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 134-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023 Page 9 of 12
counsel and each of Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses except to the extent that the communications (i) 

relate to the expert’s compensation; (ii) identify facts or data that the attorney provided and that 

the expert considered in forming the opinions to be expressed; or (iii) identify assumptions that 

the attorney provided and that the expert relied on in forming the opinions to be 

expressed. Plaintiff further objects to the extent this Request seeks documents outside of her 

possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and her 

General Objections, Plaintiff’s counsel will produce all non-privileged documents within their 

possession, custody, or control that are responsive to this Request. 

 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 134-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023 Page 10 of

12
Dated: October 19, 2023 /s/ Nicholas L.V. Warren 

 

Caroline A. McNamara (FBN 1038312) 

Daniel B. Tilley (FBN 102882) 

Janine M. Lopez (FBN 1038560) 

ACLU Foundation of Florida 

4343 West Flagler Street, Suite 400 

Miami, FL 33134 

(786) 363-2714 

cmcnamara@aclufl.org 

dtilley@aclufl.org 

jlopez@aclufl.org 

 

Nicholas L.V. Warren (FBN 1019018) 

ACLU Foundation of Florida 

336 East College Avenue, Suite 203 

Tallahassee, FL 32301 

(786) 363-1769 

nwarren@aclufl.org 

 

Gregory P. Luib* 

Dechert LLP 

1900 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

(202) 261-3413 

gregory.luib@dechert.com 

Neil A. Steiner* 

Julia Markham-Cameron* 

Dechert LLP 

Three Bryant Park 

1095 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10036 

(212) 698-3822 

neil.steiner@dechert.com 

julia.markham-cameron@dechert.com 

 

Christopher J. Merken* 

Dechert LLP 

Cira Centre 

2929 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19104 

(215) 994-2380 

christopher.merken@dechert.com 

* Admitted pro hac vice 

 

Counsel for Plaintiffs

 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 134-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023 Page 11 of

12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that, on October 19, 2023, the above Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant’s First Set 

of Requests for Production was served by email on counsel for the City of Miami. 

 /s/ Nicholas L.V. Warren

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 134-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023 Page 12 of

12