Court Opinion

ID: 9907769
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 22:02:20.005988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:01:04.216936
License: Public Domain

COURT OF CHANCERY
                                      OF THE
                                STATE OF DELAWARE
PAUL A. FIORAVANTI, JR.                                          LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER
  VICE CHANCELLOR                                                   500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 11400
                                                                   WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3734

                            Date Submitted: December 4, 2023
                             Date Decided: December 6, 2023

   John G. Harris, Esquire                     Kevin G. Abrams, Esquire
   Halloran Farkas + Kittila LLP               J. Peter Shindel, Jr., Esquire
   5801 Kennett Pike, Suite C/D                April M. Ferraro, Esquire
   Wilmington, Delaware 19807                  Abrams & Bayliss LLP
                                               20 Montchanin Road, Suite 200
                                               Wilmington, DE 19807

   Stephen C. Norman, Esquire
   Jaclyn C. Levy, Esquire
   Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP
   1313 North Market Street, 6th Floor
   Wilmington, Delaware 19801

          RE:    James Bocock et al. v. Innovate Corp. et al.,
                 C.A. No. 2021-0224-PAF

  Dear Counsel:

          Defendants have moved to compel discovery. In addition, they seek an order

  declaring that the Plaintiffs have waived all objections to discovery and requiring

  the Plaintiffs to pay the Defendants’ attorneys’ fees and expenses related to the

  motion. The court grants the motion to compel, grants the request for fees, and finds

  that the Plaintiffs have waived all objections, except for objections based on

  attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.
James Bocock et al. v. Innovate Corp. et al.
C.A. No. 2021-0224-PAF
December 6, 2023
Page 2 of 16

I.       FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         Twenty-six plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in this action on June 23,

2021. 1 On October 28, 2022, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion dismissing

the majority of the Plaintiffs’ claims. 2 The details of the claims are not pertinent to

this motion.

         On May 5, 2023, Defendants 3 served interrogatories and requests for

production on Plaintiffs (the “Discovery”). 4 On June 5, 2023, Plaintiffs requested

and Defendants granted a fifteen-day extension of the deadline for Plaintiffs to

respond to the Discovery.5

         When the end of that extension came to pass on June 20, 2023, Plaintiffs

collectively served a single response consisting of seven pages of “General

1
    Dkt. 30.
2
    Dkt. 62.
3
 The Innovate Defendants took the lead among the defendants in this discovery dispute
and filed the pending motion. For ease of reference, the court refers to the movants as
“Defendants.”
4
    Mot. Exs. B–C.
5
  Court of Chancery Rules 33(b)(2) and 34(b) require that a recipient of interrogatories or
requests for production serve her responses and responsive documents, along with any
objections, within 30 days of service of the interrogatory or document request, or within
45 days after service of the summons and complaint upon that defendant. Plaintiffs here
waited until the day that their responses were due, June 5th, before requesting an extension.
James Bocock et al. v. Innovate Corp. et al.
C.A. No. 2021-0224-PAF
December 6, 2023
Page 3 of 16

Objections,” but nothing else. 6 The General Objections consist of boilerplate and,

in many instances, duplicative objections that are untethered to any specific request

or interrogatory.7 Inexplicably, Plaintiffs did not provide a specific or substantive

response to a single interrogatory or request for production.

          On June 22, 2023, the Defendants insisted that Plaintiffs provide proper

responses by June 28.8 The Defendants also noted that by failing to provide specific

responses and objections, Plaintiffs had waived all objections to the Discovery.9

When Plaintiffs did not respond to the Defendants’ email or provide proper

responses to the Discovery by June 28, the Defendants requested a meet and

confer.10        On June 29, Plaintiffs responded that they were “working on the

responses” and stated that they would “serve the plaintiffs’ respective discovery

responses on a rolling basis – most likely starting next week[,]” i.e., the week of July

6
    Dkt. 75; Mot. Ex. D.
7
  See, e.g., Mot. Ex. D ¶ 2 (objecting to all requests because they impose obligations beyond
the court’s rules, without specifying such obligations); id. ¶ 6 (objecting to all requests
because they seek publicly available documents or documents “available from a less
burdensome or costly source than Plaintiffs” without identifying any alternative source of
information); id. ¶ 14 (objecting to all requests “to the extent they seek irrelevant
information”).
8
    Mot. Ex. E at 1–2.
9
    Id.
10
     Id. at 1.
James Bocock et al. v. Innovate Corp. et al.
C.A. No. 2021-0224-PAF
December 6, 2023
Page 4 of 16

3. 11 Plaintiffs also proposed a meet and confer for July 5 or 6. 12 Defendants replied

90 minutes later, indicating their availability to meet and confer on July 5 and 6.13

Plaintiffs did not respond.

           On July 12, 2023, Plaintiffs still had not served discovery responses,

prompting Defendants to file their motion to compel (the “Motion”). 14 Plaintiffs

oppose the Motion, but they do not attempt to justify their failure to provide

discovery. Rather, they argue that fee shifting is not warranted because there are

many plaintiffs that need to provide discovery and there is no prejudice to the

Defendants because there is no case scheduling order in place.15 The court heard

argument on the Motion on December 4, 2023, affording Plaintiffs an opportunity

to justify their actions and to persuade the court that their conduct did not warrant

an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses to the Defendants.

II.        ANALYSIS

           Defendants’ right to obtain discovery begins with Court of Chancery Rule 26.

Rule 26(b)(1) states:

11
     Mot. Ex. F at 1–2.
12
     Id.
13
     Id. at 1.
14
     Dkt. 77.
15
     Pls.’ Opp’n Br. ¶ 32.
James Bocock et al. v. Innovate Corp. et al.
C.A. No. 2021-0224-PAF
December 6, 2023
Page 5 of 16

         Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged,
         which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action,
         whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery
         or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence,
         description, nature, custody, condition and location of any documents,
         electronically stored information, or tangible things and the identity and
         location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. It is
         not ground for objection that the information sought will be
         inadmissible at the trial.

Ct. Ch. R. 26(b)(1). Responses to interrogatories and requests for production are

due within 30 days of their service. Ct. Ch. R. 33(b)(2), 34(b).

         A.     The Motion to Compel Is Granted.

         Despite a 15-day extension from the Defendants, none of the 26 plaintiffs

served a timely response to the Discovery. Rather, Plaintiffs served collective

“General Objections” on the final day of the extension. Plaintiffs do not contend

that the service of the General Objections satisfied their obligation to respond to the

Discovery. Although some of the Plaintiffs served discovery responses after the

Defendants moved to compel, many did not. 16

         Plaintiffs offer no meaningful response to the motion to compel. They merely

argue that the Motion was unnecessary because they were working to collect

responses to the Discovery both prior to and after the Motion was filed. 17 That

16
     Defs.’ Reply Br. ¶ 1.
17
     Pls.’ Opp’n Br. ¶ 30.
James Bocock et al. v. Innovate Corp. et al.
C.A. No. 2021-0224-PAF
December 6, 2023
Page 6 of 16

argument is without merit. The Plaintiffs requested and were granted a fifteen-day

extension to serve their discovery responses. The Plaintiffs were required to serve,

and Defendants rightfully expected to receive, compliant responses from each

plaintiff by the new deadline that the Plaintiffs themselves had requested. Had

Plaintiffs needed a further extension, they could have requested one from the

Defendants or filed an application with the court. They did neither.

      In order to avoid an order shifting fees, Plaintiffs’ counsel devised a last-

minute argument that the Motion will soon be moot. Plaintiffs claim that discovery

from all of the Plaintiffs is unnecessary because they intend to file a further amended

complaint naming only two of the 26 current plaintiffs as representative parties, and

those two parties have each (belatedly) served their discovery responses. That

argument, which was raised for the first time at the December 4, 2023 hearing, is

frivolous.

      Defendants served discovery requests in May 2023 on all of the named

Plaintiffs in the operative complaint. Those Plaintiffs were plaintiffs at the time the

discovery was served, at the time the responses were due, and at the time the Motion

was filed. They are also the Plaintiffs of record today.18 In their opposition to the

18
   The suggestion of a new second amended complaint naming only two defendants was
floated between counsel for the first time just a week before argument on the Motion. This
James Bocock et al. v. Innovate Corp. et al.
C.A. No. 2021-0224-PAF
December 6, 2023
Page 7 of 16

Motion, Plaintiffs argued that they were “actively responding to Defendants’

discovery requests and trying to move the case forward without unreasonable

delay.”19 Hence, Plaintiffs—all of the Plaintiffs—represented that they would

provide discovery. They did not do so. Indeed, more than 168 days have passed

since the discovery responses were due, and at least a dozen plaintiffs have not

served discovery responses. 20 The suggestion that the Plaintiffs might move to file

a new amended complaint with fewer plaintiffs at some future date does not excuse

the existing Plaintiffs’ failure to provide timely and complete discovery responses

that they were required to serve almost six months ago, and it does not render the

Motion moot.

         The motion to compel is granted. Plaintiffs shall serve responses to the

Discovery within five business days.

new strategy diverges from the Plaintiffs’ approach after they received the discovery
requests. On June 27, 2023, Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second amended complaint.
As the Defendants pointed out to Plaintiffs at the time, the proposed second amended
complaint contains obvious errors and should be corrected before filing. For example, the
second amended complaint seeks to add a defendant, but the new defendant is not identified
in the caption. See Mot. Ex. H. Furthermore, the twenty-six plaintiffs listed in the original
complaint and the amended complaint are also listed as the plaintiffs in the proposed
second amended complaint. See Dkt. 76.
19
     Pls.’ Opp’n Br. ¶ 32.
20
  Plaintiffs describe their “delay” in providing discovery as “modest, isolated, and non-
prejudicial.” Id. ¶ 37. A failure to provide discovery for more than five months cannot be
characterized as a mere delay.
James Bocock et al. v. Innovate Corp. et al.
C.A. No. 2021-0224-PAF
December 6, 2023
Page 8 of 16

      B.     Plaintiffs Have Waived Most of Their Objections to Discovery.

      Defendants seek a declaration that the Plaintiffs waived their objections to the

Discovery.    Defendants argue that waiver is the appropriate remedy because

Plaintiffs’ boilerplate general objections were lacking in specificity and constitute

waiver under the Court of Chancery Rules.

      A party resisting discovery must articulate the bases for its refusal to provide

the requested information. “All grounds for an objection to an interrogatory shall be

stated with specificity.” Ct. Ch. R. 33(b)(4); see also Ct. Ch. R. 34 (“[T]he grounds

and reasons for the objection(s) shall be stated with specificity.”). The key word is

“specificity.” Thus, “[g]eneric and formulaic objections ‘are insufficient.’” In re

Oxbow Carbon LLC Unitholder Litig., 2017 WL 959396, at *1 (Del. Ch. Mar. 13,

2017) (quoting Van de Walle v. Unimation, Inc., 1984 WL 8270, at *2 (Del. Ch. Oct.

15, 1984)). A party that fails to assert a proper, timely objection to a discovery

request risks waiver of its objections. Ct. Ch. R. 33(b)(4) (“Any ground not stated

in a timely objection is waived unless the party’s failure to object is excused by the

Court for good cause shown.”); see Gower v. Beldock, 1998 WL 200267, at *2 (Del.

Ch. Apr. 21, 1998) (holding that responding party waived objection to request for

production by failing to timely assert it); Fingold v. Comput. Entry Sys. Corp., 1990

WL 11633, at *1 (Del. Ch. Jan. 26, 1990) (same). “[B]oilerplate objections have
James Bocock et al. v. Innovate Corp. et al.
C.A. No. 2021-0224-PAF
December 6, 2023
Page 9 of 16

been considered prima facie evidence of a Rule 26 violation, which causes the

objecting party to waive any legitimate objections that they may or may not have

had.” In re Oxbow, 2017 WL 959396, at *3 (internal quotations omitted).

         The seven pages of General Objections that Plaintiffs served on June 20, 2023,

did not come close to satisfying the Court of Chancery Rules. 21 Court of Chancery

Rule 33(b) requires a responding party to “restate[]” and answer each interrogatory

“separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to, in which event

the objecting party shall state the reasons for objection and shall answer to the extent

the interrogatory is not objectionable.” Ct. Ch. R. 33(b). Under Court of Chancery

Rule 34(b), the responding party must “state, with respect to each item or category

[of documents requested], that inspection and related activities will be permitted as

requested, unless the request is objected to, in which event the grounds and reasons

for objection(s) shall be stated with specificity.” Ct. Ch. R. 34(b); see also id. (“An

objection must state whether the responding party is withholding or intends to

withhold any responsive materials on the basis of that objection”).

         The General Objections do not (i) “restate” any interrogatory, (ii) answer any

interrogatory “separately [or] fully,” (iii) answer any interrogatory “under oath,” (iv)

21
     Mot. Ex. D.
James Bocock et al. v. Innovate Corp. et al.
C.A. No. 2021-0224-PAF
December 6, 2023
Page 10 of 16

state with respect to any category of documents whether inspection will be

permitted, (v) state whether Plaintiffs intend to withhold any requested document,

or (vi) state any specific objection to any interrogatory or request for production.22

Despite recognizing that they were required to provide full and separate responses

and specific objections to each interrogatory and request for production by June 20,23

Plaintiffs failed to do so. What the Plaintiffs did serve was woefully inadequate.

Plaintiffs’ objections were merely boilerplate, untethered to any specific discovery

request.24 They were also duplicative in several respects, reflecting a level of

sloppiness which further demonstrates that the Plaintiffs did not take their discovery

obligations seriously. 25

22
     Id.
23
     Mot. Exs. F, G.
24
   Plaintiffs paint their objections with an extremely broad stroke, objecting to the
Discovery (i) “to the extent they seek irrelevant information,” (ii) “to the extent they are
vague, ambiguous, confusing, indefinite, duplicative, cumulative, [and] unintelligible,”
and (iii) “because they seek documents and communications that are . . . available from a
less burdensome or less costly source than Plaintiffs.” Mot. Ex. D ¶¶ 6, 8 ,14. In addition,
14 of the 19 general objections are equivocal, stating that the Plaintiffs object “to the
extent” the requests are objectionable.
25
  Plaintiffs asserted (i) three separate objections to the extent the Discovery assumes legal
conclusions (Objection Nos. 11, 18, 20); (ii) two separate objections to the extent the
Discovery calls for privileged information (Objection Nos. 4 and 12); and (iii) two separate
objections to the extent the Discovery seeks documents and information that is not within
Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control (Objection Nos. 3 and 15). Mot. Ex. D.
James Bocock et al. v. Innovate Corp. et al.
C.A. No. 2021-0224-PAF
December 6, 2023
Page 11 of 16

         Plaintiffs do not defend their General Objections as being compliant with the

Court of Chancery Rules. Instead, they argue that waiver is too strong a sanction for

this circumstance.26 Plaintiffs maintain that “[w]aiver of objections is usually

reserved for a party’s persistent refusal to provide substantive discovery responses,”

and they urge the court to permit the Plaintiffs to supplement their discovery

responses. Id. at 12. Plaintiffs point to one of Chancellor McCormick’s discovery

decisions in the Twitter litigation, where the court declined to find a waiver of

objections and permitted the defendants to supplement certain of their discovery

responses. Twitter, Inc. v. Musk, 2022 WL 3591142, at *2 (Del. Ch. Aug. 23, 2022).

In doing so, the Chancellor credited the defendants with having conceded that their

initial responses were “overly aggressive” and noted that defendants “appear[ed] to

have walked back most of their initial objections.” Id. It was for that reason that the

court gave the defendants a second chance. Twitter does not support Plaintiffs’

position in this case. Unlike the defendants in Twitter, the Plaintiffs did not walk

back any of their boilerplate General Objections. Indeed, even the few Plaintiffs that

later filed actual responses to the Discovery repeated the same general objections

verbatim and incorporated them into every specific interrogatory response and

26
     Pls.’ Opp’n Br. ¶¶ 40–41.
James Bocock et al. v. Innovate Corp. et al.
C.A. No. 2021-0224-PAF
December 6, 2023
Page 12 of 16

response to the requests for production. 27 “Such a response makes it impossible to

determine what information a party has agreed to provide and whether the response

is complete; it therefore amounts to a waiver of the objections that purportedly were

preserved.” In re Oxbow, 2017 WL 959396, at *2.

       Plaintiffs also insist that a waiver of attorney client privilege is too harsh a

result and is unwarranted under the circumstances. Plaintiffs rely on Wal-Mart

Stores, Inc. v. AIG Life Insurance Co., 2008 WL 498294 (Del. Super. Jan. 14, 2008),

for the proposition that “Delaware Courts will find a waiver of the attorney-client

privilege in rare instances.” Id. at *3. Wal-Mart addressed a waiver of privilege that

resulted from a party’s production of a privileged document, not a waiver for failure

to make a valid objection under Rule 33 or 34. Id. Nevertheless, the opinion reflects

the general proposition that a finding of waiver of privilege is harsh and rare. Id.

       In the typical case in this court, parties will assert a general objection

preserving their right to withhold documents or information on the grounds that it

calls for production of information protected by the attorney-client privilege or

27
   See Defs.’ Reply Br. Ex. B at 2 (“Plaintiff responds to the Requests, including the
instructions and definitions therein, subject to the General Objections set forth below.
These limitations and objections, which form a part of Plaintiff’s response to each Request,
are set forth here to avoid the duplication and repetition of restating them for each
individual response.”).
James Bocock et al. v. Innovate Corp. et al.
C.A. No. 2021-0224-PAF
December 6, 2023
Page 13 of 16

work-product doctrine. In representative litigation in this court, at least as to

document production, a party ordinarily specifies the grounds for its privilege and

work-product objections in a privilege log. Klig v. Deloitte LLP, 2010 WL 3489735,

at *6 (Del. Ch. Sept. 7, 2010). Typically, the log is produced when or after

documents are produced, not at the time a party delivers its initial responses and

objections to a document request. Ordinarily, this court prefers to adjudicate

objections to privilege after a privilege log is provided. See, e.g., In re Oracle Corp.

Deriv. Litig., 2019 WL 6522297, at *22 (Del. Ch. Dec. 4, 2019) (noting that privilege

objections should be decided in the context of a privilege log); In re Côte d’Azur

Estate Corp., 2022 WL 17574747, at *12 (Del. Ch. Dec. 12, 2022) (“The court

would order production, allow the respondents to serve privilege logs, and then

adjudicate any disputes over privilege.”). This is a close call, but the court declines

to declare that privilege has been waived. Except as to objections on grounds of

privilege and work-product, all objections to the Discovery are waived. Plaintiffs

failed to provide timely objections to the Discovery, and they failed to demonstrate

good cause that would excuse their failure to assert timely objections. See, e.g.,

Gower, 1998 WL 200267, at *2; Fingold, 1990 WL 11633, at *1.
James Bocock et al. v. Innovate Corp. et al.
C.A. No. 2021-0224-PAF
December 6, 2023
Page 14 of 16

         C.     Defendants Are Entitled to Recover Their Fees and Expenses.

         Court of Chancery Rule 37(a)(4)(A) states that, if the court grants a motion to

compel:

         the Court shall, after affording an opportunity to be heard, require the
         party . . . whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or attorney
         advising such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party the
         reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including the
         attorney’s fees, unless the Court finds that the opposition to the motion
         was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award
         of expenses unjust.

Ct. Ch. R. 37(a)(4)(A) (emphasis added). “[Rule 37’s] purposes are to: (1) penalize

the culpable party or attorney; (2) deter others from engaging in similar conduct; (3)

compensate the court and other parties for the expense caused by the abusive

conduct; and (4) compel discovery and disclosure.” Gandhi-Kapoor v. Hone-Cap.

LLC, --- A.3d ----, 2023 WL 4628782, at *5 (Del. Ch. July 19, 2023) (quoting

Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 239 F.R.D. 81, 99 (D.N.J. 2006)).

         Plaintiffs argue that fee shifting is inappropriate because Defendants have

suffered no prejudice. 28 But in a motion for fee shifting under Rule 37, “[t]he issue

is not whether [the movant] has been prejudiced, but whether [the party from whom

discovery is sought] has demonstrated good cause for ignoring the deadlines, and it

28
     Pls.’ Opp’n Br. ¶ 35.
James Bocock et al. v. Innovate Corp. et al.
C.A. No. 2021-0224-PAF
December 6, 2023
Page 15 of 16

has not.” PVH Polymath Venture Hldgs. Ltd. v. TAG Fintech, Inc., 2023 WL

4986424, at *2 (Del. Ch. Aug. 3, 2023). Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate good cause

here.

        There is no justification for Plaintiffs’ failure to serve timely and compliant

responses to the Discovery. Plaintiffs have not disputed, and cannot dispute, that

their General Objections are deficient or that they missed the extended deadline to

respond to the Discovery. Even today, almost six months after the deadline, many

of the Plaintiffs have not offered a substantive response to a single interrogatory or

document request. Plaintiffs’ conduct was not substantially justified, and there are

no other circumstances that make an award of expenses unjust. Accordingly, the

Defendants are entitled to their reasonable fees and expenses under Rule 37. 29

III.    CONCLUSION

        All Plaintiffs shall serve full and complete responses to the Discovery on or

before December 13, 2023. All objections to the Discovery are waived, except for

objections that the information requested is protected by the attorney-client privilege

or work-product doctrine. Defendants are awarded all of their reasonable attorneys’

29
  Because the court concludes that fee shifting is warranted under Rule 37, the court does
not reach Defendants’ argument that fee shifting is also justified under the bad faith
exception to the American Rule.
James Bocock et al. v. Innovate Corp. et al.
C.A. No. 2021-0224-PAF
December 6, 2023
Page 16 of 16

fees and expenses incurred in connection with the Motion. If the parties are unable

to reach agreement on the fee award, Defendants shall file an affidavit in conformity

with Court of Chancery Rule 88 on or before January 5, 2024. 30

                                               Very truly yours,

                                               /s/ Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr.

                                               Vice Chancellor

30
   Any opposition is due five business days later, followed by a reply by the Defendants
five business days thereafter.