Order on Discovery — United States v. One 2005 Cadillac Escalade EXT (S.D. Fla., Dkt. 14)

Summary

Order on Discovery, Document 14, entered on the docket May 4, 2009, in United States of America v. One 2005 Cadillac Escalade EXT and other defendants, Case Number 09-60229-CIV-ALTONAGA-BROWN, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division. The Court states that the matter came before it sua sponte and instructs the parties on discovery objections. It directs that parties not make nonspecific, boilerplate objections that a request is vague, overly broad or unduly burdensome, or irrelevant, and not recite a formula objection followed by an answer. It also addresses objections based on privilege, which it says must identify the specific nature of the privilege asserted, and directs counsel to comply with Local Rule 7.1.4.3 before filing any discovery motion.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 0:09-cv-60229-CMA Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2009 Page 1 of 3

09-60229.disc
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Miami Division
Case Number: 09-60229-CIV-ALTONAGA-BROWN
UNITED STATE OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

VS.

ONE 2005 CADILLAC ESCALADE EXT,
VIN# 3GYEK62N35G215722, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER ON DISCOVERY

THIS MATTER came before the Court sua sponte. In order to efficiently resolve this
matter, the Parties are instructed as follows. The following rules apply to discovery objections
before this Court:

I. Vague, Overly Broad and Unduly Burdensome:

Parties shall not make nonspecific, boilerplate objections. Such objections do not comply
with Local Rule 26.1 G 3(a) which provides “Where an objection is made to any interrogatory or
sub-part thereof or to any document request under Fed.R.Civ.P. 34, the objection shall state with
specificity all grounds.” Objections which state that a discovery request is “vague, overly broad, or
unduly burdensome” are, by themselves, meaningless, and are deemed without merit by this Court.
A party objecting on these bases must explain the specific and particular ways in which a request is

vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); Josephs v. Harris Corp,

677 F.2d 985, 992 (3d Cir. 1982)(‘“‘the mere statement by a party that the interrogatory was ‘overly

broad, burdensome, oppressive and irrelevant’ is not adequate to voice a successful objection to an

1
Case 0:09-cv-60229-CMA Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2009 Page 2 of 3

interrogatory.”’).

II. Irrelevant and Not Reasonably Calculated to Lead to Admissible Evidence:

As with the previous objection, an objection that a discovery request is irrelevant and not
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence must include a specific explanation describing
why the request lacks relevance, and why the information sought will not reasonably lead to
admissible evidence. Parties are reminded that the Federal Rules allow for broad discovery, which
does not need to be admissible at trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); see Oppenheimer Fund, Inc.
y. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 345 (1978); see also Local Rule 26.1 G 3(a).

II. Formula Objections Followed by an Answer:

Parties shall not recite a formulaic objection followed by an answer to the request. It has
become common practice for a party to object on the basis of any of the above reasons, and then state
that “notwithstanding the above,” the party will respond to the discovery request, subject to or
without waiving such objection. Such objection and answer preserves nothing, and constitutes only
a waste of effort and the resources of both the parties and the court. Further, such practice leaves
the requesting party uncertain as to whether the question has actually been fully answered, or only
a portion of it has been answered. Civil Discovery Standards, 2004 A.B.A. Sec. Lit. 18; see also
Local Rule 26.1 G 3(a).

IV. Objections Based upon Privilege:

Generalized objections asserting “confidentiality,” attorney-client privilege or work product
doctrine also do not comply with local rules. Local Rule 26.1 G 3(b) requires that objections based
upon privilege identify the specific nature of the privilege being asserted, as well as identifying such
things as the nature and subject matter of the communication at issue, the sender and receiver of the
communication and their relationship to each other, among others. Parties are instructed to review

Local Rule 26.1 G 3 (b) carefully, and refrain from objections in the form of: “Objection. This

2
Case 0:09-cv-60229-CMA Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2009 Page 3 of 3

information is protected by attorney/client and/or work product privilege.” If such an objection is
made without a proper privilege log attached, it shall be deemed a nullity.

V. Pre-filing Conferences

COUNSEL SHALL COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1.4.3 PRIOR TO FILING
ANY DISCOVERY MOTION,

VI. Discovery motions

Counsel and parties are advised to thoroughly review the District Judge’s Order Setting
Trial and Pre-Trial Schedule, which sets an expedited briefing schedule for motions to compel

and motions for protective order.

ce: Honorable Cecilia M. Altonaga
Counsel of record


File and source

File

14.pdf

Size

127,854 bytes

SHA-256

6c680ae3ad1fddde5e38a0064e3f235bbd15f35824356d1101662afedb0a011b

Our copy

14.pdf

Original

No public link identified.