UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 22-60884-CIV-MOORE/SNOW
BOYD JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC.,
Defendant.
________________________________________/
GENERAL ORDER ON DISCOVERY OBJECTIONS AND PROCEDURES
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. All discovery matters in this case have
been referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge by the presiding District Court
Judge. In order to efficiently resolve discovery disputes, the parties are hereby notified that the
following rules apply to discovery objections before this Court. In addition, the procedure for filing
discovery motions is set forth in Attachment “A” to this Order and is incorporated herein. This
procedure does not apply to any discovery motion currently pending before the undersigned, but
shall apply to any motion filed after the date of this Order.
1. Vague, Overly Broad and Unduly Burdensome
The parties shall not make nonspecific, boilerplate objections. Such objections do
not comply with S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(e)(2)(A), which provides, “Where an objection is made to any
interrogatory or subpart thereof or to any production request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
34, the objection shall state with specificity all grounds.” Objections that state that a discovery
request is “vague, overly broad or unduly burdensome” are, standing alone, meaningless and will
be found meritless by this Court. A party objecting on these grounds must explain the specific and
Case 0:22-cv-60884-KMM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 1 of 4
particular way in which a request is vague, overly broad or unduly burdensome. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 33(b)(4), S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(e)(2)(A). Additionally, if a party believes that a request is vague,
the party shall attempt to obtain clarification prior to objecting on this ground.
2. Objections Based Upon Scope
If there is an objection based upon an unduly broad scope, such as time frame or
geographic location, discovery should be provided as to those matters within the scope that is not
disputed. For example, if discovery is sought nationwide for a ten-year period, and the responding
party objects on the grounds that only a five-year period limited to activities in the State of Florida
is appropriate, the responding party shall provide responsive discovery falling within the five-year
period as to the State of Florida.
3. Irrelevant and Not Reasonably Calculated to Lead to Admissible Evidence
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. The
parties are reminded that the Federal Rules allow for broad discovery that need not be admissible
at trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(g)(3)(A); Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v.
Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351-52 (1978).
4. Formulaic Objections Followed by an Answer
The 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, “notwithstanding the above,” the party will respond to the discovery request,
subject to or without waiving such objection. This type of objection and answer preserves nothing
2
Case 0:22-cv-60884-KMM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 2 of 4
and serves only to waste the time and resources of the parties and the Court. Further, such practice
leaves the requesting party uncertain as to whether the question actually has been fully answered or
whether only a portion of the question has been answered. See Civil Discovery Standards, 2004
A.B.A. Sec. Lit. 18; S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(e)(2)(A).
5. Objections Based Upon Privilege
Generalized objections asserting attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine
also do not comply with the Local Rules. S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(e)(2)(B) requiresthat objections based
upon privilege identify the specific nature of the privilege being asserted, as well as, inter alia, the
nature and subject matter of the communication at issue and the sender and receiver of the
communication and their relationship to each other. The parties are instructed to carefully review
this rule and to refrain from objections such as, “Objection. This information is protected by
attorney/client and/or work product privilege.” If a general objection of privilege is made without
attaching a proper privilege log, the objection of privilege may be deemed to have been waived.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Lauderdale, Florida this 24 day of May, 2022. th
Copies to:
All Counsel of Record and/or Pro Se Parties
3
Case 0:22-cv-60884-KMM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 3 of 4
ATTACHMENT A (Revised June 2021)
DISCOVERY PROCEDURES FOR MAGISTRATE JUDGE LURANA S. SNOW
THE COURT MAY DECLINE TO CONSIDER A MOTION OR RESPONSE WHICH
DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THESE PROCEDURES
DISCOVERY MOTIONS AND MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS UNDER RULE 26 OR 37
Counsel must actually confer (either in person , via telephone or Zoom(or similar platform))
and engage in a genuine effort to resolve discovery disputes before filing discovery motions.
If, after conferring, the parties are unable to resolve their discovery disputes without Court
intervention, the moving party shall file a motion, no more than 5 pages in length. The moving party
may attach as exhibits to the motion materials relevant to the discovery dispute. For example, if the
dispute concerns interrogatories, the interrogatory responses (which restate the interrogatories) shall
be filed, with an indication of which interrogatories remain in dispute. Because the parties may
attach relevant discovery to the motion, compliance with S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(g)(2) or (3) is not
required. The movant shall include in the motion a certificate of good faith that
complies with S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(a)(3) and that specifically states the meaningful telephonic or
in person conferral that was made by the parties. A general statement that the parties
conferred but were unable to resolve the issues is not sufficient and may result in the Motion
being denied without prejudice.
RESPONSES and REPLIES TO MOTIONS
The responding party shall file a response to the discovery motion no later than as provided
in the federal procedural rules or as provided by order of the Court. The response shall be no more
than 5 pages in length. The responding party may attach as exhibits materials relevant to the
discovery dispute, as outlined above.
The reply brief shall be no more than 3 pages in length.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
These procedures do not relieve parties of the requirements of any Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure or Local Rule except as noted above.
The parties shall file a notice in CM/ECF if they resolve some or all of the issues in dispute
in the pending motion.
All parties are advised that in accordance with Local Rule 77.1, all forms of equipment or
means of photographing, audio- or video- recording, broadcasting or televising are prohibited while
the Court is in session or at recess.
4
Case 0:22-cv-60884-KMM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2022 Page 4 of 4