On No ve mbe r 3 0, 20 09 , Pl a int if fs fi le d a Sup ple me nta l N oti c e [105 ] re g ard ingthe ir 1 Motion for Waiver [74] , reiter atingthat all untimely objections should be dee med waive d, wh e the r t he y we re a sse rt e d b y

De fe nd ant i n it s in iti a l r e sp on se s to dis c ov e ry re qu e sts or

in i ts supplemental re sponses. -1- UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C OU RT F O R T H E D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA

____________________________________ ) FRAZ I ER CAUDL E, et al., ) Pla int if

fs , ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-0205 ) (HH K/AK) D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA ) De fe nd ant. ) ____________________________________ ) M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Pending be fore this Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Or der F inding Waiver of De fenda

nt’s Ob je c tio ns Pur su ant t o F e de ra l Ru le of Civ il Pr oc e dure 33 (b )( 4) Or , in the Al te rn ativ e , to Compel Defe ndant to I dentify Discover y Wit hheld and Gr ounds There fore (“Motion for Wa iv e r ” ) [7 4 ]; D e f

e n d an t’ s o p p o s it io nto th e M o ti o n( “ O p p o s it io nto M o ti o nf o r Wa iv e r ” ) [8 1 ];
and Pla int if fs ’ r e ply to t he Op po sit ion

(“ Re ply to O pp os iti on

to M oti on

fo r Wa ive r” ) [8 6]. A lso p e n d in gb e f

o r e th is Co urt a

r e Pl a inti f

f s ’ M o ti o nto Co mp e l ( “ M o ti o nto Co mp e l” ) [7 5 ]; Def endant’ s Opposition to t he Motion to Compel (“Opposition to Mot ion to Compel”) [82] ; and Pla int if fs ’ R e ply to t he Op po sit ion

to t he Mo tio n to Com

pe l ( “ Re ply

to O pp os iti on

to M oti on

to Compel”) [85]
. The Court held a hear ing on the se two motions on October 15, 2009. U pon 1 consideration of Plainti ffs’ Motion for Waiver, the memora

nda in support there of, the Opposition there to and the re cord in this case , for the r easons se t forth below, the Plaintiffs’ Motion for-2-

Waiver is g rante d in part and de nied in part. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel is also gra nted in part and denie d in part. A sepa rate Orde r ac companies this Memora ndum Opinion.
I. Bac kgr ound Pla int if fs are Af ri c an- Am e ri c an p oli c e of fi c e rs in t he Me tr op oli tan Po lic e De pa rtme nt (“ MPD ” ) o f t

he Di str ic t of

Col umb ia . ( Pl. 3r d A m. C mpl . [3] ¶ 1. ) P la int if

fs a lle g e that th e MPD violated their c ivil rights, see42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the District of Columbi a Human Rights Act, DC Code § 2- 1401.01, et seq. , by reta liating a g ainst them for c omplaining a bout discriminatory

conduct by

means of a

n anony mous complaint sent to MP D on J une 16, 2006, and a complaint filed on August 24, 2006. ( Id. ) P la int if

fs a lle g e that D e fe nd ant’ s r e ta liator y a c ts inc lud e d th e ir

tr ans fe r f ro m th e F oc us Mis sio n Unit (“ F MU ” ), an e lit e un it i n th e MPD ’s F ir st District, which wa s responsible for targ etingmajor cr iminal activities. (Pl. 3 Am. Cmpl. [ 3] rd ¶2.) Plaintiffs fur

ther a lleg e that they

wer e demoted. ( Pl. 3rd Am. Cmpl. [ 3] ¶8.) Plaintiffs served the ir discover y reque sts on Defe ndant District of Columbia (her einaf ter, “De fenda nt” or the “ District”) on O ctober 1, 2008 and De fenda

nt’s response s were initially due by No ve mbe r 2 4, 20 08 . Pl a int if fs c on se nte d to a

14 -d ay e xten sio n o f t

he du e date and

thu s, Def endant’ s responses w ere due on De cembe r 8, 2008; howeve r, it was not until Dece mber 29, 20 08 , tw e nty-o ne da

y s a ft e r t he e xten de d d e a dli ne fo r a re sp on se , th at th e Di str ic t r e sp on de d to Plaintiffs’ document re quests. The District subseque ntly responde d to Plainti ffs’ inter rog atories on J anuar y 14, 2009, thirty -seve n day s after the extended dea dline. On Fe bruar y 24, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel discovery response s and for

sanctions [38/39] , alleg ing that the discover

y response s provided by

the District wer e “substantially defic ient.” (Motion forThe District ha s supplemented its discovery response s on approximately eig ht 2 occa sions: Februa

ry 2 & 3, 2009; Ma

rch 17, 2009; Apr il 1, 2009; J une 18, 2009; J uly 1, 2009; J uly 23, 2009; and September 2, 2009; y et, the District’s r esponses a re still alleg ed by

Plaintiffs to be def icient. (Opposition to Motion t o Compel at 7.). L oc a l Civ il Ru le 7( m) re qu ir e s th at: 3 Be fore filing a

ny nondispositi ve motion in a civil action, counse l shall discuss the anticipated motion with opposing c ounsel, either in pe rson or by telephone, in a

g ood faith ef fort to deter

mine whether

there is any

opposition t o the re lief soug ht and, if there is oppositi on, to narrow

the ar eas of

disag ree ment. Additionally , on May

28, 2099, this Court entered a Protective Or der g overningthe 4 e xch ang e of

c on fi de nti a l in fo rm atio n, wh ic h f a c ili tate d th e e xch ang e of so me dis c ov e ra

ble information. -3- Waiver at 3, 4.) In their motion to compel discovery , Plaintiffs also alleg ed that De fenda nt had 2 waived its objec tions to t heir discove ry reque sts by

not respondingin a timely fashion. (Motion [38] at 1.) This Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice, notingthat it could be
rene wed a fter the Plaintiffs complied with the “mee t and conf er” require ments set forth in L ocal Civil Rule 7(m). (Ma

rch 23, 2009 Me morandum Orde r [49] .) 3 Subsequent to the Court’s Marc h 23, 2009 Memorandum Or der, the parties pa rticipated in telephonic status conf

ere nces w ith the Court on May 1, 2009; May

5, 2009; J une 17, 2009; and J une 22, 2009, in an attempt to informally resolve some of the ong oing disc overy disputes. In a

4 Min ute Or de r d ate d Jun e 22 , 2 00 9, the Court g ra nte d Pl a int if

fs ’ r e qu e st f

or le ave to [r e ]fi le its mot ion to c omp e l, a c kn ow le dg ingthat Pla int if fs ha d s atis fi e d th e re qu ir e me nt u nd e r L oc a l Civ il Rule 7(m) to attempt to meet and c onfer in good f aith, but asked that Plaintiffs def er f iling such mot ion until June 29 , 2 00 9. On Se pte mbe r 4 , 2 00 9, Pla int if fs fi le d th e ir

“ re ne we d” mot ion

to
c o mp e l [ 7 5 ], an d

Pl a inti f f s s im u lt an e o u s ly

f il e d a mo ti o nf o r w a iv e r o f o b je c ti o n s [7 4 ].The District fur ther c ontests Plainti ffs’ a lleg ed noncomplianc e with the re quirement that 5 me mor and

um o f p oints a

nd a uth or iti e s in

su pp or t of a mot ion be fi le d s e pa

ra te ly . ( Op po sit ion

to the Motion for Waiver at 2.) L ocal Civil Rule 7(a) doe s not impose this require ment. Plaintiffs argue that such w aiver of objec tions applies not only to objections that were 6 asser ted in Def

endant’ s initi al re sponses to discovery reque sts but also includes “new obje ctions to Plainti ffs’ doc uments reque sts [ asser ted] some seven months after Def endant’ s responses w ere initially due.” ( Motion for Waiver at 9.) -4-

II. Analysi s- Mot ion f

or Waiver A. De fend ant ’s P r oc e dur al O bj e c ti ons Def endant c ontests the filing of Plaintiff’s Motion for Waiver [74] on g rounds that Plaintiffs failed to comply with their “mee t and conf er” obligations set forth in L CvR 7(m), prior to filing such motion. This asser tion is contrary

to the rec ord in this case which ver ifies that the parties r epeatedly

eng ag ed in telephone confe renc es with the Court, for the purpose of narr owing dis c ov e ry dis pute s. Th e re c or d in

thi s c a se a lso inc lud e s c or re sp on de nc e se nt b y

the Pla int if

fs to the District, which highlighted pe rce ived discover y defic iencies. F urthermor e, the f act that the Court gr anted Plaintiffs’ r equest for leave to [ re]file their motion to compel (whic h included an argument about waive r of objec tions) should have made it eminently clea r to the District that P l a i n t i f f s i n t e n d e d

t o r e f i l e th e i r m o t i o nt o c o mp e l an d

r e qu e s ta w a i v e r o f o b j e c t i o n s . F i n a l l y,

5 the Court finds disinge nuous Defe ndant’s foc us on proce dural issues whe n the substantive inq uir y at is su e in t

his c a se is D e fe nd ant’ s f

a ilure to p ro vid e tim e ly

dis c ov e ry

re sp on se s. B. L e ga l St anda r d forWa ive r of Obj e c ti ons Pla int if fs argue that th e Di str ic t ha s w a ive d it s o bje c tio ns to t he ir dis c ov e ry

re qu e sts pursuant to Fe d. R. Civ. P . 33 and 34 and r eleva nt case law by

failingto serve a

ny “objec tions or response s until several we eks af ter its alre ady

extended deadline f

or issuing r esponses.” (Motion for Waiver

at 1, 4.) Nor ha s the District provided a privileg e logto expl ain the grounds for a ny 6-5-

documents beingwithheld. (Motion for Waiver at 2.) “Any g round not stated in a timely objection is waived unle ss the court, for g ood cause , e xcu se s th e fa ilure .” F e d. R. C iv. P. 3 3( b) (4 ). Whil e Rul e 34 la c ks sim ila r w a ive r p ro vis ion s, thi s Ci rc uit

ha s a pp lie d th e wa ive r p ro vis ion a pp lic a ble to i nte rr og ator ie s und e r R ule 33 to document re quests. My rd al v . D ist ric t of Colum bia , No. 05-02351, 2007 WL1655875 at *3 (D.D.C. June 7, 2007) (findingDef endant wa ived objections whe n he answ ere d discovery
re qu e sts tw o mo nth s late ); Fo nv illev . D ist ric t of Colum bia , 230 F.R.D. 38, 42 (D .D.C. 2005) (findingDef

endant wa ived objections whe n he filed his re sponses 20 day s late.) In g ener al, untimely

objections to discovery

reque sts are w aived. In re Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG Li tig. , 550 F. Supp. 2d 17, 22 (D.D .C. 2008)

. A cour t may howeve r excuse a failure to timely

object if it finds g ood cause
. See B yrd v. Re no , No. 96-2375, 1998 WL429676 at *6 (D.D .C. Feb. 12, 1998) (def ining g ood cause as medica l emerg ency or whe re r equests ar e
s o p ate n tl y

ir r e le v an t t h at a c c e p ti n ga

late o b je c ti o nis n e c e s s ar

y f o r th e c o urt t o “ p r e v e n t [ ] misuse of its processe s.”) The court may also reje ct a wa iver whe re the opposing pa rty will not suffe r pre judice and the delinquent par ty has not demonstrate d a patter n of misconduct. See Bu rli ng ton v . Ok

ieDo k ie , 368 F.Supp.2d 83, 91 (D.D .C. 2005) (allowingPlaintiff to object de sp ite re sp on din g9 d ay s a ft e r d e a dli ne ); Blumenthal v. Drudge , 1 86 F .R. D. 23 6, 24 0 ( D. D. C. 1999) (f inding Plaintiff did not waive he r objec tions where she filed answe rs 5 or 9 da y s late and wher e De fenda

nt also missed deadlines for court filing s) 1. Est abl ishi ng G oo d Ca use The District a

rgues that this jurisdiction “has not articulate d a conc ise fra mework de fi nin gthe te rm

‘g oo d c a us e ’ [b ut] o the r c ourt s h ave a do pte d a mul ti- fa c tor

te st t hat is-6-

co n s i s t en twi thth i s C o urt ’s p ri o r p re ce d en t
. ” ( Op p o s i t i o nat3 , ci t i n g Enron Corp. Sav. Plan v. He witt As so cs. , L.L.C ., 258 F.R.D. 149, 156-57 ( S.D. Tex. 2009), Hall v. Sullivan , 231 F.R.D. 46 8, 47 4 ( D. Md . 2 00 5) ; Bu rli ng ton v . Ok ieDo k ie , 368 F. Supp.2d 83, 91 (D.D .C. 2005)). The Ha ll case , id

at 474, cited by

Def endant, se ts forth the followingfac tors for the Court’ s consideration of “g ood cause ”: (1) the le ng th of the dela

y or fa ilure to particula

rize; (2) the re ason for

the delay or fa ilure to particular ize; (3) whether there was a

ny dilatory or bad f aith action on the pa

rt of the party that failed to ra ise the objec tion properly ; (4) whe ther the pa rty seekingdiscovery has bee n prejudice d by

the fa ilure; (5) whether

the document pr oduction reque st was pr op e rl y fr ame d a nd no t e xce ssi ve ly

burd e ns ome ; and

(6 ) whe the r w a ive r w ou ld i mpo se an excessively

harsh r esult on the defa

ulting par ty
. In th e ins tant c a se , th e Di str ic t is un a ble to d e mon str ate any

“ g oo d c a us e ” fo r i ts inordinate de lay

in providing a

response to Plainti ffs’ disc overy reque sts. 2. The “Hall ” F actor s a. Length of

Delay At the hea

ringon the Motion for Waiver, both counse l indicated that the District sought and re ceive d an extension of time in which to file its discovery response s. Plainti ffs a g ree d to a 14-day extension after the D istrict initi ally reque sted a 30-da

y extension. C ounsel for the District
a c kn ow le dg e d th at th e Di str ic t di d n ot s ub se qu e ntl y mov e fo r a

fu rt he r e xten sio n o f i ts r e sp on se time despite havingthe opportunity to do so. Se eFo nv ille , 230 F.R.D. at 42 (noting that the District of Columbia “did not seek a n extension of tim e” [to respond to discover y ] and holding the District’s untimely

discovery

response s require d waiver of all of the D istrict’s objections). Def endant’ s counsel prof

fer ed no re ason for

Def endant’ s failure to seek a

n additional extension of the re sponse dea dline. The leng th of delay - 21 day s after

the extended discover

y deadline f

or response s to document reque sts and 37 day s after the extended discover

y deadline f

or re sponses-7-

to interrog atories - weighs in favor of waiver of objec tions. b. Reason f

or the D elay Th e Di str ic t su g g e sts that it s d e lay in r e sp on din gto d isc ov e ry re qu e sts wa s attr ibuta

ble to the appr oachingThanksg iving a nd winter holiday s and Metropolitan Police De partment pr e pa ratio ns fo r t

he ina ugur atio n, wh ic h th e Di str ic t be lie ve s is g oo d c a us e fo r i ts f

a ilure to provide timely

response s or objections. See Opposition to Mot ion for Waiver, Exh. A (De clar ation of Ted Z elewski, Chief A dminist rative O ffice r of the F irst District Metropolitan Police Depa

rtment) (discussingrea sons for the de lay .) Plaintiffs asser ts that “[a] ny

difficulties
c a us e d b y the ho lid ay s and

/or the ina ugur atio n o c c ur

re d o nly a ft e r D e fe nd ant d id n ot t ime ly respond to Plaintiffs’ re quests and ther efor e we re c aused by Def endant’ s delinquency .” (Motion for Waiver

at 5.). The “justifications” for delay relied upon by

the District do not provide a
rea sonable ba sis for noncompliance with the Fe dera l Rules of Civil Procedur e, g overningthe timing of objec tions and responses. The District admittedly never attempted to obtain an additional extension of the response de adline [based on these “justifications” or a ny other re ason] and eve n when the D istrict’s response s were finally filed, they

wer e def icient. ( See Motion for Wai ve r, Exh. 7 ( Di str ic t’ s Re sp on se s to Pla int if fs F ir st Se t of

Inte rr og ator ie s) ). Ac c or din g ly , th is fac tor weighs in favor of

waiver of objec tions. c. Dilator y or Bad Fait h Action The District a sserts that its delay in this case “w as not a re sult of bad fa ith or any attempt to delay the proc eeding s in this m atter.” (Opposition to Moti on for Waiver at 5.) While the Pla int if fs do no t a sse rt

that th e Di str ic t a c te d in

ba d f a ith , th e Di str ic t’ s b e havio r c ou ld c e rt a inl y be cha rac terized as dilatory

insofar a s the District failed to move f or an a dditional ex tension ofPlaintiffs further a ssert that bec ause the y are still employ ed by

the District, duringthe 7 tim e thi s c a se is p e nd ing , th e y c ontin ue to b e “ vu lne ra

b[le ] an d “ e xpos [ed ].” (R e ply to Opposition to Mot ion for Waiver at 11.) -8- time in which to respond to discover y ; the District proff

ers no r eason f

or such f ailure; a nd afte r
re c e ivi nga

14 -d ay e xten sio n o f t

he dis c ov e ry

de a dli ne , th e Di str ic t di d n ot f ile its re sp on se s to document re quests and interr og atories, r espec tively , until 21 and 37 day s after the extended discovery cutoff. T he District’s a ctions were clea rly dilatory and this fac tor weighs in favor of waiver of objec tions. d. P r e ju dic e to P lai nt iffs Th e Di str ic t a sse rt s th at “ pla int if fs c ann ot s ho w o n th is r e c or d th at th e y have be e n und

uly pr e jud ic e d b y

the be late d d isc ov e ry” in l ig ht o f t he e xten sio n o f d isc ov e ry . . ., and Pla int if fs ’ elec tion not to pursue depositions unti l they had all pape r discover

y . (Opposition to Moti on for Waiver at 5.) T o the contra ry , the Plaintiffs argue that they have be en pre

judiced by

Def endant’ s conduct be cause the Def

endants’ f ailure to re spond in a timely fashion dela

y ed the e ntire discovery proce ss, nece ssitating the amendment of the sc hedulingorder dates a nd requiringthe trial court to postpone the tria l date. (Reply to Opposition t o Motion for Waiver at 10- 11.) See 7 also Starli

ght , 1 81 F .R. D. 49 4, 49 7 ( D. Ka n. 19 98 ) ( fi nd ingthat la c k o f p re jud ic e [to p la int if

fs ] does not constitute a showingof g ood cause .) While the Court ag ree s that some of the pre judice to Plainti ffs ha s been “ cure d” by the extension of discovery deadlines in this case , such extensions of discovery

nece ssitated by

the ac tions of one par

ty g ener ally result in incre ased litigation costs for a ll parties and the loss of infor mation/witnesses attributable to the passa g e of time. Accor dingly , the Court finds that this factor a lso weig hs in favor of waiver of objec tions.-9- e. Discove ry Re quests Another f actor considere d in Ha ll wa s whe the r t he dis c ov e ry

re qu e sts we re pr op e rl y framed and not unduly

burdensome. H avingrevie wed the disc overy reque sts in thi s case , the Court finds them to be g ener ally well cr afte d and not unduly burdensome. F urthermor e, Plaintiff has deta iled alleg ed def

ects in the District’s r esponses instead of g ener ally contestingthe sufficie ncy

of De fenda

nt’s response s. ( See, e .g., Motion for Waiver, Exh. 14 (J anuar y 15, 2009 le tte r f ro m Pla int if

fs ’ c ouns e l to De fe nd ant’ s c ouns e l ) ). B e c a us e Pla int if

fs ’ d isc ov e ry

re qu e sts
wer e not over ly

broad a nd Plaintiffs were able to spec ify those portions of the De fenda nt’s response s they

found def

icient, this factor

weighs in favor of

waiver
. f. H arsh Result The fina l fac tor consider ed in Ha ll was whe ther wa iver is an unjustifiably harsh sa nction in the context of the circumstanc es of a particula r ca se. De fenda

nt argues that “w aiver

is an extreme sanction re serve d only for c ases involvingunjustifiable delay , inexcusable conduc t or ba d f a ithin r e sp on din gto d isc ov e ry re qu e sts .” (O pp os iti on

to M oti on

fo r Wa ive r at 5) ; see Pa bs t , 5 5 0 F. S u

p p . 2 d at2 2 (c i t i n g United Steel W orkers of Ame rica v. A v a c o , 2 0 0 2 WL 31932875, at *4-5 (N .D.Ga. 2003) ). See also Burlington , 3 68 F . Su pp . 2 d at 91 (h old ingthat a waiver of plaintiffs’ untimely

objections was not justified bec ause the delay did not prejudice the defe ndant and ther e wa s no pattern of misconduct.) Burlington is disti nguishable bec ause, in the instant ca se, there has been a pattern of unjustifiable delay

attributable to the District, not only in its failure to respond to discove ry in a timely manner but also in the piece meal wa y in which supplementation of those r esponses ha s been pr ovided and the D istrict’s prac tice of a ssertinglate objec tions, with som e objec tions being-10-

raised a y ear afte r the discove ry

was ser ved. (Reply

to Opposition t o Motion for Waiver at 6.) Se eW e bb v . D ist

ric t of Colum bia , 175 F.R.D. 128, 147 (D .D.C. 1997) rev’d on other grounds by 14 6 F .3 d 9 64 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 8) (“ I f t he Di str ic t w a s una

ble to r e sp on d to the do c ume nt r e qu e st, the prope r re sponse was to file a motion for an enla

rg ement of time with the c ourt. Instead, the Di str ic t a br og ate d to its e lf

the ri g ht t o p ro vid e a

c ur so ry , in c omp le te re sp on se wi th a pr omi se to update in the f

uture. This is totally

improper, a

nd this court has pre viously used similar conduc t to support a findingof discover y misconduct by

the District in another

case .”) Simi larly , in the ins tant c a se , th e Di str ic t sh ou ld h ave mov e d f or a fu rt he r e nla rg e me nt o f t ime in whic h to
re sp on d to dis c ov e ry

ins te a d o f r e sp on din gin a c ur so ry mann e r a nd the n s up ple me nti ngtho se response s multi ple times. Applying the fac tors set forth in Ha ll weighs in favor of

findinga wa iver of a ll of the District’s untimely

objections that are not based on c laims of privileg e or r eleva nce. 2. Wa ive r of P r ivi le ge Obj e c ti ons To su c c e ssf

ull y a sse rt pr ivi le g e , a

pa rt y mus t e xpre ssl y

c la im p ri vil e g e a s a

n o bje c tio n to a discove ry

reque st, and descr ibe the privileg ed docume nt with enoug h particula rity so the party ’s opponent ca

n assess the c laim. Fed. R. Civ. P 26(b)(5). Aprivileg e loghas bec ome an almost universal method of a ssertingprivileg e under the Fe dera l Rules. Fi rst

Am . Co rp . v . A lNahyan , 2 F .Su

pp .2 d 5 8, 63 (D .D .C. 19 98 ); Bre gm an v . D ist

ric t of Colum bia , 182 F.R.D. 352, 363 (D.D.C. 1998) ( failure to produce a privileg e logbars a later c laim of privileg e.) Ob je c tio ns ba se d o n c la ims of pr ivi le g e may

be wa ive d und e r R

ule s 3 3 a nd 34 fo r f a ilure to make a timely objection. Fo nv ille , 230 F.R.D. at 42. See also Rul e 33 (b )( 4) (s tatin gthat un le ss a pa rt y c an e sta bli shg oo d c a

us e , “ any g ro un d n ot s tate d in

a tim e ly ob je c tio n is wa ive d” ); Myrdal-11-

v . D ist ric t of Colum bia , No. 05-02351, 2007 WL1655875, at *3 (D.D .C. J une 7, 2007) ( “I f a pa rt y fa ils to s tate an o bje c tio n to an inte rr og ator y in a tim e ly mann e r, the pa

rt y a uto matic a lly waives that objection.”) Def endant a rgues that privileg e objec tions are “ particula rly impervious to waiver .” (O p p o s i t i o nt o M o t i o nfo r W ai v er at7 ; ci t i n g Pa bs t , 550 F. Supp.2d at 22-23.) See U nited States v. British Am. Tobacco , 3 87 F . 3 d 8 84 , 8 91 (D .C. Cir . 2 00 4) ( “ [W]aiv e r o f p ri vil e g e is a serious sanc tion mostsuitable for c ases of unjustified delay , inexcusable conduc t, and bad faith.”) Plaintiffs assert howe ver that the Pa bs t case lends cre dence to the proposition that waiver is the g ener al rule r ather

than the exception. 550 F. Supp.2d 17, 22 (D .D.C. 2005). Plaintiffs note that the Pa bs t court uphe ld a waive r of objec tions based on attorne y -client privileg e, wor

k product, a

nd consulting e x pert privileg e bec ause “ Pabst’s failure to respond to . . . discovery

reque sts, as directly

order ed, wa s entirely

unjustified and inexcusable and smac ks of ba d f a ith .” 55 0 F .Su

pp .2 d at 22 ; se eals o F

on v illev . D ist

ric t of Colum bia , 230 F.R.D. 38, 42 (D.D.C. 2005) ( noting that the w aiver rule holds true “ even where the par ty objects to disclosure b ec au s e i tcl ai m s th atth e i n fo rm at i o ns o u gh ti s p ri v i l ege d ”) (c i t i n g Da v is , 650 F.2d at 1160); Peskoff v. F

aber , 244 F.R.D. 54, 64 (D .D.C. 2007)(“ Courts have found tha t failure to state any objections to the production of doc uments in a timely manner constitutes a waive r of a

ny objections, similar to Rule 33, even thoug h Rule 34 does not contain an a utomatic waiver provision.”) (c itations omi tted). Pla int if fs c on c e de that c ourt s are mor e lik e ly to m ake an e xce pti on

to t he wa ive r r

ule in
case s where minor violations would result in the waiver of an objec tion based on privileg e as opposed to a wa iver of a

n objection base d on some other grounds. Plaintiffs assert howe ver thatSuch reque sts would perhaps a sk a par ty to “explain her g enea logy back to Eve ” or 8 produce “eve ry

piece of pape r in the Pentag on.” (Motion for Waiver at 8.) -12- this is t he exception rather than the rule. This Court finds that a waiver of privileg e objec tions is a more serious sanc tion than a waiver of other obje ctions, and in its discretion, this Court wil l allow Def endant to pre serve the privileg e objec tions that were r aised in the District’s initial response s to Pl aintiffs’ discove ry reque sts [ as opposed to objec tions raised in supplemental re sponses.] Thus, in l ieu of providing an additional re sponse to discovery reque sts for which the D efe ndant has a sserted pr ivilege , the Court will permit the District to provide a privileg e logto the Plaintiffs. Upon reque st by the Plaintiffs, the Court will undertake a n in c am e ra revie w of the doc uments alleg ed by the District to be privileg ed. 3. Wa ive r of R e le va nc e Obj e c ti ons Rule 33(b)(4) provides for an automatic w aiver

of objec tions, with a narrowexception for e x traordina

ry circ umstances, upon a

showingof g ood cause . Plaintiffs assert that a w aiver of objections enc ompasses re levanc e objec tions, while the District argues that re levanc e objec tions
are not waived, r elying upon Byrd v. R eno , No. 96-2375, 1998 WL429676, at * 6 (D.D .C. Feb. 12, 1998), an opinion re cognizi ngthat cer tain overly

broad discove ry

reque sts would warra

nt an
e xce pti on to R ule 33 (b )( 4) ’s a

uto matic wa ive r b e c a

us e the pa rt y wo uld be fo rc e d to re sp on d to
outr a g e ou s d isc ov e ry

re qu e sts du e to a

wa ive d r e le va

nc e ob je c tio ns . See also Caldwell v.

8 Center for Correctional Health and Policy Studies, Inc ., 228 F.R.D. 40, 44 (D .D.C. 2005) (“ Al tho ugh th e ob

je c tio n b a se d o n b ur de ns ome ne ss h a s b e e n w a ive d, pla int if f i s n ot e nti tle d to de mand fr om d e fe nd ants inf

or matio n th at is ne ith e r r e le va nt t o a c la im o r d e fe ns e no r l ike ly to-13-

lead to information that is.”) In Pa bs t , the cour t concluded that releva

ncy objections must be outside the scope of

waiver beca use if they

wer e not, the par

ties could “a sk the most outrag eous qu e sti on s p os sib le in t

he ho pe that an unti me ly

re sp on se wo uld

pe rm it the m to g e t in dir e c tly what they know they

could not g et direc tly .” 550 F . Supp.2d at 22-23. Pla int if fs c onte nd

that if re le va nc e ob je c tio ns are se t a

pa rt fr om o the r o bje c tio ns in t e rm s of wa ive r, the re wo uld

be an in c e nti ve to a sse rt

re le va nc e ob je c tio ns “ a s mu c h a s p os sib le ” to avoid waive r. (Reply

to Opposition t o Motion for Waiver at 7.) Fur thermore , Plaintiffs note that Def endant ha s asserte d objections on a rollingbasis in this case, eve n as re cently as their Oc tober 1, 20 09 su

pp le me nta l r e sp on se to D oc ume nt R e qu e sts No s. 1 a nd 3, and it w ou ld t

hu s b e un fa ir for De fenda

nt to be able to cur e its waiver mere ly by asser ting r eleva

nce obje ctions at some point in time. This Court’s reviewof Plaintiffs’ discover y reque sts, which targ et spec ific re levant inf or matio n, make s it

c le ar t hat th e y sh ou ld n ot b e c omp are d to the ov e rl y br oa d a nd pate ntl y irrele vant re quests contemplated in Byrd. The Court finds that De fenda nt’s rele vance objections sh ou ld b e g e ne ra lly

wa ive d b ut t

he Court do e s ma int a in t

he dis c re tio n to lim it the sc op e of so me of the discove ry

reque sts herein to eliminate undue burden on the District. III. Legal Stan dard and Analysis of Motion to Com pel The F eder al Rules of Civil P roce dure pe rmit discovery of “a ny nonprivileg ed matter

that is releva nt to any party ’s claim or de fense .” F ed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Courts g ener ally construe rele vance for the pur

pose of discove ry

broadly
. Food Lion v. United Food &Commercial W orkers Int’ l Union , 103 F.3d 1007, 1012 ( D.C. Cir. 1997). Parties have sever al means of obtaining disc overy . Rule 33 allows a par ty to serve a s many

as 25 interr og atories r elated to a nyKee ly Wil liams is P ay

roll Manag er, Pay

roll Operations for Public Safety and Just ice 9 Cluster of the Of

fice of the Chief F inancial Of fice r. -14- p e r m i s s i b l e i n qu i r

y un d e r R u l e 2 6 ( b ) o nany o th e r

p arty. F e d
. R
. C i v . P
. 3 3 ( a ) ( 1 )

- ( 2 )
. S i m i l ar l y, Rule 34 permits a par

ty to serve r equests, within the scope of Rule 26(b), f or docume nts or elec tronically

stored information on any other pa rty . Fe d. R. Civ. P . 34(a) (1)( A). Tr ia l c ourt s h ave br oa d d isc re tio n in ha nd lin gdis c ov e ry

matte rs . Food Lion , 103 F.3d at 1012 ( citing Brune v. I

nternal Reve nue Serv

. , 8 61 F .2 d 1 28 4, 12 88 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 8) ). Rul e 37(a) (1) a llows a party

to “move for

an orde r compe lling disclosure or discover y .” F ed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)( 1). In the instant case , Plaintiffs move to compel complete r esponses to seve ral interrog atories a

nd document re quests propounded to the D istrict. As a pr e lim ina

ry matte r, thi s Co ur

t ha s a lr e a dy

g ra nte d a wa ive r o f a ll o f D e fe nd ants ’ objections to discovery

reque sts other than those base d on privileg e and the Def endant is re quired to produce a privileg e login connec tion with any privileg e objec tions that were a sserted in the Def endant’ s initi al re sponse to Plaintiffs’ discovery reque sts. Accor dingly , a portion of Pla int if fs ’ M oti on

to C omp e l [75 ] ha s b e c ome moo t be c a us e De fe nd ant m ay

no t r e ly on c e rt a in objections. The Court will now addr ess the bala nce of the conteste d discovery

reque sts in the order in which they

wer e pre sented in the Motion to Compel. I NTERROGATORY NO 8 - Plaintiffs seek infor mation about the proc edure s, policies and pra ctices by

which De fenda

nt retaine d and sea

rche d for pa

per doc uments. In connec tion with its Opposit ion to the Motion t o Compel, the District provided Plaintiffs with Dec larations by Ted Z alewski a

nd Kee ly Wil liams, addressingthe information re quested in Interrog atory No. 8. In their Reply

to the Opposition to t he Motion to Compel, the Pl aintiffs state that “ Def endant 9-15-

ha s su pp le me nte d it s r e sp on se wi th r e sp e c t to de sc ri bin gits se arc h o f p a pe r d oc ume nts to Pla int if fs ’ s atis fa c tio n. ” (R e ply

to O pp os iti on

to t he Mo tio n to Com

pe l at 15 .) Thus the on ly
rema ining disputed issue is Plaintiffs’ re quest for D efe ndant’s docume nt retention policy
. Pla int if fs argue that D e fe nd ant’ s r e sp on se [a r e fe re nc e to t hr e e po lic ie s] is ins uf

fi c ie nt b e c a

us e it doesn’t provide all reque sted information and/or the policies did not apply duringthe re levant tim e pe ri od . D e fe nd ant’ s r e sp on se fa ils to r e but Pla int if fs ’ a lle g atio ns of

ins uf fi c ie nc y and thu s, the Court finds that Def

endant must supplement its response to that portion of Interrog atory No. 8 relating to docume nt retention policies, pra ctices a nd proce dures. F or those docume nts for which De fenda

nt has claimed pr ivilege , a privileg e logmust be provided. I NTERROGATORY NO . 7/DOCUMENT REQUESTS NOS. 12 and 13 - Plaintiffs
asser t that Defe ndant has not produc ed ar rest statistics, which re late to Def endant’ s “two purported non- reta liatory justifications for its treatment of Plaintiffs.” (Motion to Compel at 9.) Def endant’ s objections based on r eleva nce a nd burden ha

ve bee n waived a

nd acc ording ly , the District must provide a re sponse to these discove ry reque sts, which encompa sses the totality of the inf or matio n r e qu e ste d; i .e ., ty

pe of arr e st; inf

or matio n a bo ut “ no pa

pe r” re qu e sts ; and

arr e st data f or all off icer s in the FMU. De fenda nt has indicated that some of the re sponsive data may consist of confide ntial information reg ardingjuveniles or data that is subject to expungement
or de rs . T he pa

rt ie s sh a ll c oo pe rate in t

he e xch ang e of

thi s p art ic ula

r s ub se t of

inf or matio n w ith the twin g oals of providingPlaintiffs with the information they need while prese rvingthe confide ntiality

of such infor

mation, whether

it is produced subjec t to the protective or der or in a
re da c te d o r s umm a

ry fo rm . Th e tim e pe ri od

fo r I nte rr og ator

y No . 7 is Janu a

ry 1, 20 04 to No ve mbe r 1 , 2 00 6, a s r e qu e ste d, wh ile the tim e pe ri od fo r D oc ume nt R e qu e sts No s. 12 and 13 isPlaintiffs requeste d a time per iod of J anuar y 1, 2004 throug h the pre sent reg arding 10 Def endant’ s response to Doc ument Requests Nos. 12 and 13. In their Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs also indicated that De fenda nt provided examples 11 of re asons for a

n employ ee’ s acc eptanc e or de nial for r e-a dmission t o the FMUinstead of explaining all re asons, but Plaintiffs’ Reply to the Opposition to t he Motion to Compel notes that
“ De fe nd ant h a s su

pp le me nte d it s r e sp on se to I nte rr og ator

y No . 5 [an d] Pla int if

fs un de rs tand

thi s supplement is a complete a ccountingof why Plaintiffs were not selecte d for r e-a dmission t o the FMU.” (Reply

to the Opposition to t he Motion to Compel at 11.) On Novembe r 25, 2009, De fenda nt filed a Notice of F iling [103] indicatingthat it had 12 further supplemented its discovery response s and ac cording ly , “the District’ s g ood faith ame nded response s have nowmooted Plaintiffs’ reque st for re lief.” (Notice at 1.) On Nove mber 30, 20 09 , Pl a int if

fs fi le d a Re sp on se to D e fe nd ant’ s N oti c e of F ili ng [104 ], a sse rt ingthat Pla int if fs ’ reque st for re lief is not moot with t he exception of two c ured de ficienc ies. . . .” (Re sponse at 1.) P l ai n t i ff s n o t e t h atDe fe n d an th as s u p p l em en t edi t s re s p o n s e “ t o re m o v e t h e p re ca t o ry l an gu age ‘upon information or belief.’ ” (Response at 5.) -16- limit ed to J anuar

y 1, 2004 throug h Dec ember 31, 2007. 10 I NTERROGATORY NO . 5 - Plaintiffs ask De fenda nt to describe the [August 2006]
rea pplication decision-makingproce ss and identify rea sons eac h applicant’ s application wa s
a c c e pte d o r d e nie d. Pla int if fs a sse rt that th is i nq

uir y is r e le va nt t o a de te rm inatio n o f p re te xt. Plaintiffs claim that Defe ndant’s re sponse is defe ctive insofar as De fenda

nt refe renc es unname d

“ a pp lic ant s up e rv iso rs ” but do e s n ot i de nti fy the se pe rs on s. Pla int if

f a lso c onte sts De fe nd ant’ s 11

u s e o f th e p h r a s e “ u

p o ni n f o r m at i o nan d

b e l i e f ” i nth e i r r e s p o n s e t o th i s i n t e r

r o g at o r y. 12 Def endant doe s not address Plaintiffs’ r equest for identification of unna

med “a pplicant
su pe rv ise rs ” in i ts O pp os iti on to t he Mo tio n to Com

pe l. ( Re ply

to O pp os iti on

to M oti on

to Compel at 11.) The Court notes that De fenda nt’s objections based on bur den and r eleva nce ha ve b ee nwa i v ed
. T o th e e x t en tth atDe fe n d an th as cl ai m edd el i b er at i v e p ro ce s s p ri v i l ege , a p ri v i l ege log must be pr ovided. Def endant must supplement its responses by identifying the “applica

nt supervisors” and the r easons f or ac cepta

nce or denial of a

pplications.Plaintiffs requeste d a re sponse to Request No. 17 for all office rs in the FMUfor the 13 period January

1, 2000 to the prese nt and for a ll Pl aintiffs fr om their first day in the FMU to the prese nt. -17- DO CU MENT REQ UE ST N O. 17 - P la int if fs re qu e st i nf

or matio n n e c e ssa

ry to c on du c t a ba c kp ay ana ly sis , in c lud ingpa

y re c or ds (o ve rt ime and

oth e rw ise ) f

or a ll o ff ic e rs in t he F MU from January

1, 2000 to the prese nt and for Plaintiffs fr om their first day in the FMU to the prese nt. Plainti ffs re quest that the data be produc ed in the for

mat in which it is kept - an
e le c tr on ic data

ba se , in ste a d o f t

ho us and s o f p a g e s o f i nf

or matio n in dif fe re nt f or mats. F e d. R. Civ . P. 34 re qu ir e s th at do c ume nts be pr od uc e d “ a s th e y

are ke pt i n th e us ua l c ours e of bu sin e ss” and if no for

m for produc ing e lectronic ally stored information is specified, it should be produce d in a form or

forms “in whic h it is ordinarily maintained or in a

rea sonably

usable for

m or forms . . . .” Rule 34( b)(2) (E)( I ) & (ii). Def endant should produc e the infor mation reque sted by Plaintiffs, in an elec tronic for mat, for a ll officer s in the FMU f or the [limi ted] ti me per iod J anuar y 1, 2003 throug h Dec ember 31, 2007, and for

Plaintiffs for the [limi ted] ti me per iod from their first day

in the FMU through Dec ember 31, 2007. 13 DOCUMENT REQUE STS NOS. 1 & 3 - Plaintiffs asser t that Defe ndant has not provided a ll documents ref err ing to c laims and defe nses in this li tigation or the underly ing administrative proc eeding[No.1] and docume nts relied upon by Def endant a nd its ex perts [No. 3]. Defenda

nt asserts that it has identified doc uments that it believed re sponsive to Document Request No. 1 and that Document Reque st No. 3 is premature as experts have not y et bee n reta ined. To the e x tent that Plaintiffs have identified spe cific doc uments or categ ories or documents re sponsive to Request No. 1 that wer e not produc ed, these documents should be provided to the Plaintiffs, if they are responsive to Doc ument Request No. 1. The Def endant’ s-18-

response to Request No. 1 should otherwise be deeme d complete. De fenda nt has ac knowledg ed that it wi ll c omp ly

wi th t he F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Pr oc e dure re g ard inge xpe rt dis c los ur e s in response to Document Reque st No. 3. This response is dee med suffic ient until such tim e as the Def endant identifie s its ex perts. DOCUMENT REQUE ST NOS. 29, 31 & 32 - Plaintiffs re quest the re -applications to t he FMU [Request No. 29] and documents re viewed by decision-make rs [Requests Nos. 31 & 32]. The District produc ed re sponsive documents and indicated that it conducted a g ood faith sea

rch but was unable to locate a ny additional responsive doc uments. See Op po sit ion to M oti on

to Com pe l, E xh. 1 (D e c laratio n o f T e d Z a le ws ki) at¶ ¶3 ,6 . T he Cou

rt fi nd s th at th e Di str ic t’ s response to these three document re quests is sufficient; i.e., the District c annot produc e documents that it cannot locate, whethe r such doc uments previously exis ted or not. The Court will not require the D istrict to “provide a sworn list of responsive doc ument that Def endant cannot locate or that no long er e x ist.” (Plaintiffs’ Motion to Com pel at 19.) DOCUMENT REQUE ST NO. 6 - Plaintiffs reque st documents showingthe assig nment date to the F MU and leng th of time serve d in the FMU by those persons who r e-a

pplied during the August 2006 re-a

pplication, to compare “the length of time in the FMU of those compar ators
se le c te d f or re -a ssi g nme nt v e rs us the le ng th o f t ime Pla int if fs we re in t

he F MU .” (O pp os iti on

to Motion to C ompel at 22.) De fenda nt produce d personne l files in response to this reque st but Pla int if fs c onte nd

that th e fi le s are no t r e sp on siv e . D e fe nd ant a sse rt s th at it is “ un a ble to l oc ate additional paper

work doc umenting the exact date of assig nment of an e mploy ee to the F MU.” (O pp os iti on

to M oti on

to C omp e l at 16 .) Pla int if fs ind ic ate that th e y

wi ll a c c e pt a

“ sw or n li st constructe d for the pur

poses of the litig ation in lieu of documents, . . . ” ( Motion to C ompel atPlaintiffs note their under standingthat the missing information responsive to these two 14 Requests is maintained in “jac kets” or “ unit files” and f urther, that Defe ndant agree d to provide “unit files” but has not done so. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not de monstrated the r eleva nce of their re quest for 15 information about per formanc e eva luations of decision make rs. -19- 23.) Def endant should re spond to this di scover y reque st by

providingPlaintiffs with the information soug ht, either by highlighting whe re in the pe rsonnel files the inf ormation may

be found or by

constructinga list with approxi mate date s of assig nment. DOCUMENT REQUE STS NOS. 8 & 10 - Plaintiffs reque st information reg arding
awa rds re ceive d by

Plaintiffs and compar ators [Request No. 8] and perfor mance evaluations of Plaintiffs, Pl aintiff’s c omparators, Ronald Wi lkins and the serg eants ser ving the FMU when Ronald Wi lkins was L ieutenant. [Request No. 10]. Pl aintiffs asse rt that the information reque sted in Document Reque st No. 10 is “rea sonably likely to lead to the discove ry

of re levant evidenc e bec ause it re lates to a c omparison of the qua lifications of Plaintiffs versus c omparators and re lates to the beha

vior of dec ision makers.” ( Motion to C ompel at 23-24.) T he De fenda nt ref ere nced pe rsonnel files in re sponse to both of these doc uments reque sts but P laintiffs asser t that the per sonnel files do not contain the infor mation reque sted. Def

endant’ s opposition does 14 not addre ss Plainti ffs’ Re quest No. 8, and a ccor dingly , beca use De fenda

nt’s objections other than privileg e have been w aived, De fenda nt should respond to this R equest to cor rec t any de fi c ie nc ie s. De fe nd ant’ s r e sp on se to R e qu e st N o. 10 sh ou ld a lso be su pp le me nte d, but it should be limit ed to per formanc e eva luations of Plaintiffs and compar ators. Def endant may 15 not rely on its unti mely

objections other than obje ctions based on pr ivilege , which would re quireDef endant’ s piece meal supplementation of its responses makes it diffic ult for this Court 16 to d e te rm ine wh at in fo rm atio n h a s b e e n p ro vid e d a nd the e xtent to wh ic h s uc h in fo rm atio n is responsive. -20- s u b m i s s i o no f ap ri v i l ege l o g. 16 D O C U M EN T R E Q U E S T S N O S
. 1 1 & 1 8 - P l a i n t i f f s r e qu e s tth atD e f

e n d an ti d e n t i f

y do c ume nts re fe rr ingor

re latin gto d isc ipl ine a g a ins t Pla int if fs , c omp arator s a

nd de c isi on -m ake rs , and Doc ument Request No. 18 re quests documents re lating to a lleg ations of misconduct by Mr. Wil kins and any

investigations or discipline resulting the ref rom. Plaintiffs state that Def endant has ac knowledg ed that re sponsive materia ls may be located in place s other than those se arc hed by Def endant. Plaintiffs re quest that Def endant unde rtake a sea

rch f or these doc uments and produce them. Def

endant did not re spond to Pl aintiffs’ c laim that its responses to Document Re qu e sts No s. 11 & 18 are de fi c ie nt a nd a c c or din g ly , th is C ourt

fi nd s th at D e fe nd ant m

us t respond to these reque sts by conductinga sea

rch f or re sponsive documents and pr oducingthem to P la int if

fs
. DOCUMENT REQUE ST NO. 15 - Plaintiffs seek doc uments reg ardingthe FMU ’s perf ormanc e expectations. In its Oppositi on to the Motion to C ompel, the District does not addre ss Plainti ffs’ c laim that its response is deficie nt. Be cause Def endant’ s objections not based on privileg e ar e wa ived as untimely , Def endant should re spond to Pl aintiffs’ r equest for supplementation of its response, but suc h response shall be limited to the tim e per iod J anuar y 1, 2004 throug h Dec ember

31, 2007, instead of January 1, 2004 throug h the pre sent. DOCUMENT REQUE ST NO. 36- Plaintiffs reque st documents reg arding“the allowanc e of F MU offic ers to wor k the day shift and any

investigation of the same[,]” which relates to Plainti ff Miller’ s alleg ations that she was de nied a da y shift on the FMU a

nd thenPla int if fs a rgue De fe nd ant w a s o n n oti c e that it ha d a duty to p re se rv e the se do c ume nts 17 as of August 24, 2006, when Plaintiffs complained a bout Smalls ’ denia l of leave , and Plaintiffs thus ask Def

endant to ce rtify

whether these doc uments exi st but that ignore s Defe ndant’s asser tion that the leave de nials are not maintained. -21- promised a tra

nsfer from the F MU to a day

shift. (Motion to C ompel at 28-29.) Plaintiffs contend that De fenda

nt produce d non-re sponsive documents in conne ction with this request. The District a

rgues that while the r equeste d documents ar e not re levant, it has produc ed disciplinary

files in its possession t hat ar e re sponsive to this request. Plaintiffs assert that Def endant’ s focus on disciplinary files is misplaced as the re a re othe r docume nts that are
re sp on siv e to t

his re qu e st that ha

ve no t be e n p ro du c e d. De fe nd ant s ha ll s up ple me nt i ts r e sp on se to this request, and in the e vent that ce rtain disciplinary files have been pur g ed, the De fenda nt should so indicate in its response. DOCUMENT REQUE ST NO. 38 - Plaintiffs ask for documents re g ardingFMU’ s leave policy for va rious periods of time, in conne ction with Plainti ff Smalls’ alleg ation that he wa s denied lea

ve af ter he eng ag ed in protec ted ac tivity . (Motion to Compel at 30.) Plaintiffs asse rt that Def endant ha s not produced “ reque sts for leave ” spec ifically soug ht in this reque st and Def endant indicates that it “ca nnot produce . . . documents re g ardingleave reque sted and de nied be c a us e it d oe s n ot m a int a in l e ave de nia ls i n th e or din ary c ours e of bu sin e ss. ” (R e ply

to Opposition to Mot ion to Compel at 22, see Opposition to Mot ion to Compel at 24.) The Court 17 agree s that “the District c annot be c ompelled to produce documents it does not have.” (Opposition to Moti on to Compel at 24.) The District’s r esponse is dee med to be suff icient. PRI VACY OB J ECTI ONS -Plaintiffs asser t that Defe ndant continues to re ly upon privac y objections eve n afte r a Protec tive Orde r g overningthe use of c onfidential information has beenIn their Response to the Notice of F iling [104] , Plaintiffs note that Defe ndant “se rved 18 up date d o bje c tio ns re mov ingthe pr iva c y ob je c tio n f ro m th e ob

je c tio ns lis te d a ft e r R e qu e st N os . 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, and 39, noted in Plaintiffs’ Motion.” (Response [104] at 5.) Plaintiffs further note that Def

endant ha s “neve r indicate d that it has withdrawn a ll objections based on privac y since the e ntry

of the May

2008 protec tive order , . . . .” (Response at 6.)

-22- put in place. The District, howeve r, conc edes that it “has withdrawn its privac y objections be c a us e the pr ote c tiv e or de r c ur e d it s o bje c tio ns .” (O pp os iti on to M oti on

to C omp e l at 25 .) Th is iss ue is thu s mo ot i ns of

a r a s th e Di str ic t is no lon g e r r e lyingup on pr iva c y ob je c tio ns . 18 ADMI NI STRATI VE ERRORS - The District indicates that the “ administrative defic iencies” alleg ed by

the Plaintiffs have be en cur ed. (O pposition t o Motion to C ompel at 26- 27), althoug h this alleg ation is contested by Plaintiffs. (Reply

to Motion t o Compel at 24-25.) This Court declines to make a rulingon a matter

so inconsequential, instea d direc ting the pa rties to meet and c onfer

to resolve these issues.

Dated: De cembe r 29, 2009 ___________/s/_______________________ A LA N K A Y UNI TED STATES MAGI STRATE J UDGE