United States District Court, S.D. Florida
S. SELTZER United States Magistrate Judge
CAUSE is before the Court on referral [DE 66] from
U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles for appropriate
disposition of all pretrial discovery motions. After a
hearing regarding discovery, the Court directed Plaintiff to
file a written Motion to Compel Document Production, which
was filed on June 4, 2018 [DE 89]. The Court also ordered
Defendant to file an expedited response [DE 87], but
Defendant has failed to respond.
issue are four depositions duces tecum which the District
Court has ordered to be taken by June 15, 2018. [DE 84]. At a
hearing on May 30, 2018, the undersigned directed the parties
to attempt to agree to a date for the depositions within the
time set by the District Court, but absent an agreement,
directed Plaintiff to unilaterally set the depositions at a
time of its choosing [DE 87]. It appears that the parties
have in good faith attempted to reach an agreement on
deposition dates but were unable to agree to dates within the
time period set by the District Court. Thus, Plaintiff
has unilaterally set the depositions for Friday, June 15,
2018, in New York, which is the last day on which depositions
can be taken per the District Court's Order. Thus, the
depositions have been properly set in accordance with the
Court's previous Order [DE 87].
next issue concerns the production of documents. Plaintiff
seeks an Order compelling SuperCom, LLC, to produce the
documents requested in the April 12, 2018, Notice of Rule
30(b)(6) Deposition of SuperCom, LLC [DE 89-1]. SuperCom,
Ltd. served a Response to the Plaintiff's Subpoena Duces
Tecum [DE 89-10] on May 29, 2018, and raised general and
specific objections to the requests, including lack of
relevancy and unduly burdensome. At the May 30, 2018,
discovery hearing, SuperCom's counsel announced that it
would produce all documents responsive to Plaintiff's
Request Numbers 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9. The Court directed
Plaintiff to file a written Motion to Compel and directed
Defendant to file an expedited response [DE 87].
Motion to Compel, Plaintiff further modified the remaining
objected-to document requests as follows:
Request 1. True copies of all of the original stock
certificates for the capital stock of SuperCom, Inc. and the
corporate entity through which SuperCom, Ltd. does business
Request 2. All monthly financial statements
(including but not limited to balance sheets, income
statements, and profit & loss statements) for SuperCom,
Inc. and SuperCom, Ltd. from Nov. 30, 2015 to date.
Request 4. All bank statements December 15, 2015 to
date for all bank accounts of SuperCom, Ltd. or SuperCom,
Inc. with any bank located anywhere in the world.
Request 5. All loan agreements and other documents
relating to any bank or other financial institution, wherever
located, that related to a currently outstanding loan to or
other credit facility for SuperCom, Ltd. or SuperCom, Inc.
argues that SuperCom failed to timely object to the documents
requested in the deposition notice and, therefore, all
objections that SuperCom may have had to the document
requests have been waived. Additionally, Plaintiff argues
that the objections raised by SuperCom were
“canned” boilerplate responses that should not be
Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it is
overly broad, seeks irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary
information, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of relevant or admissible evidence, or is any way
beyond the scope of disclosure required byi the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. [DE 89-10].
is substantial legal precedent supporting the general rule
that if a party fails to respond in writing within thirty
days of being served with a request for production of
documents, it is appropriate for the court to find that the
party's objections are waived, unless the court finds
good cause and excuses that failure.” Bailey v.
City of Daytona Beach Shores, 286 F.R.D. 625,
627 (M.D. Fla. 2012) (quoting Enron Corp. Savings
Plan v. Hewitt Associates, L.L.C., 258 F.R.D.
149, 156 (S.D. Tex. 2009). Furthermore, “the court
retains discretion to decline to compel production of
requested documents when the request far exceeds the bounds
of fair discovery, even if a timely objection has not been
made.” Wymore v. Nail, 2016 WL 1452437, at *2
(W.D. La. Apr. 13, 2016) (citations omitted).
documents requested by Plaintiff are, at best, marginally
relevant to the claims and defenses of the parties.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). The Court also has concerns about the
proportionality of the requests to the needs of the case.
However, Defendant has failed to show good cause for its
failure to timely object, and has not shown grounds for
sustaining its objections. Indeed, Defendant has failed to
timely respond to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel. Accordingly,
the Court must conclude that Defendant's objections to
the Requests to Produce have been waived. For this reason, it
AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Motion to Compel
Document Production [DE 89] is GRANTED. The
depositions scheduled for June 15, 2018, in New York shall
proceed, and SuperCom, Ltd. shall produce the documents
requested in Plaintiffs April 12, 2018, Notice of Deposition
by 5:00 p.m. ...