Narumi VARGAS f/k/a Narumi Collado, Plaintiff' v. FLORIDA CRYSTALS CORPORATION, a Foreign Profit Corporation, Defendant CASE NO. 16-81399-CV-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN United States District Court, S.D. Florida Signed May 05, 2017 Counsel Lisa Michelle Kohring, Steven Leo Schwarzberg, Schwarzberg & Associates, PL, West Palm Beach, FL, for Plaintiff. Bayardo E. Aleman, Rene Felipe Ruiz, III, Giselle Gutierrez Madrigal, Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A., Miami, FL, for Defendant. Matthewman, William, United States Magistrate Judge OMNIBUS ORDER ON PARTIES' CROSS MOTIONS REGARDING ALLEGED MISCONDUCT AT PLAINTIFF'S TWO PRIOR DEPOSITIONS, DIRECTING THAT THIRD DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF BE CONDUCTED IN THE U.S. COURTHOUSE UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE COURT, AND RULING ON ALL OTHER PENDING DISCOVERY MOTIONS *1 THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant, Florida Crystals Corporation's (“Defendant”), Motion to Compel Discovery [DE 18], Plaintiff, Narumi Vargas' (“Plaintiff”), Motion to Compel Discovery [DE 27], Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Third-Party Subpoenas Duces Tecum or in the Alternative, Motion for Protective Order [DE 51], Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery [DE 54], Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order, for Sanctions Against Defendant for Conducting the Deposition in Bad Faith and for the Appointment of a Special Master to Oversee the Plaintiff's Continued Deposition [DE 63], and Defendant's Motion to Compel Conclusion of Plaintiff's Deposition and for Sanctions for Improperly Terminating Deposition and Obstructionist Deposition Tactics [DE 69]. These matters were referred to the undersigned upon an Order referring all discovery matters to the undersigned for appropriate disposition. See DE 14. The Court held a hearing on these matters on May 1, 2017. See DE 76. All pending motions are now ripe for review. I. BACKGROUND This case was filed by Plaintiff, Narumi Vargas, on August 9, 2016 by way of a six count Complaint [DE 1] asserting causes of action under the Federal Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) and Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), including FMLA Interference (Count 1), FMLA Retaliation (Count 2), Failure to Accommodate under the ADA (Count 3), Disability Discrimination under the ADA (Count 4), Hostile Environment under the ADA (Count 5), and Retaliation under the ADA (Count 6). The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was an executive secretary for Defendant, Florida Crystals Corporation, and that she suffered from various health conditions. [DE 1, pp. 1-2, ¶ 2]. Plaintiff claims that she worked for Defendant for five years, most recently as an executive secretary for Doug Romain. [DE 1, p. 3, ¶ 12]. Plaintiff alleges that in March or April of 2014, Plaintiff developed gastrointestinal problems (GERD) requiring frequent trips to the bathroom. [DE 1, pp. 3-4, ¶ 17]. Plaintiff alleges that she continued to suffer from these medical conditions thereafter leading to her hospitalization from May 4-6, 2015. [DE 1, p. 10, ¶¶ 60-61]. According to the Complaint, Plaintiff “involuntarily resigned” to escape intolerable and illegal employment practices based on her medical condition, hence this lawsuit. [DE 1, p. 12, ¶ 76].[1] Trial is currently scheduled for the two-week trial calendar beginning December 4, 2017, the discovery cutoff is June 30, 2017, and dispositive motions are due by August 30, 2017 per the Court's Scheduling Order [DE 14]. II. DISCOVERY ISSUES IN THIS CASE On October 14, 2016, the District Judge referred all discovery motions to the undersigned as the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case, and on the same date, the undersigned entered an Order Setting Discovery Procedure [DE 15]. Since at least January 16, 2017, the parties' counsel have continually bickered over discovery. *2 The first salvo was by Plaintiff's counsel when Plaintiff filed her Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Directed to Non-Party MD Now Medical Centers, Inc. [DE 16] on January 16, 2017. This Motion violated the procedures set forth in this Court's Order Setting Discovery Procedure [DE 15]. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Quash was promptly denied without prejudice. See DE 17. Following that initial salvo, Defendant has filed seventeen[2] discovery motions, responses, replies, and notices (not including motions for extension of time to respond). These seventeen filings were filed from mid-January of 2017 to the date of the hearing held on May 1, 2017, a period of 3½ months. Not to be outdone, Plaintiff has filed nineteen[3] discovery motions, responses, replies, and notices (not including motions for extension of time to respond) in the same 3½ month period. *3 In that same 3½ month period, due to the bickering of the parties' counsel over discovery issues, their inability to act cooperatively with one another in the discovery process, and their litigiousness in regards to discovery, the Court has held two lengthy discovery hearings as follows: a discovery hearing on March 2, 2017, which lasted one hour and sixteen minutes [DE 41] and a discovery hearing on March 28, 2017, which lasted one hour and thirty-three minutes [DE 60]. The May 1, 2017 hearing on various pending discovery motions, which lasted one hour and five minutes, is the third lengthy discovery hearing required within this 3½ month period. [DE 76]. The Court has entered fifteen discovery-related orders, both written and endorsed, in that same 3½ month period. The plethora of motions has required the Court to address, consider, and rule on disputes that most lawyers are able to routinely agree upon, such as: 1) The entry of a confidentiality order covering the production of medical records; 2) The scheduling of deposition dates for Defendant and certain witnesses; 3) Discovery disputes over production of Plaintiff's tax returns; Plaintiff's LinkedIn profile; Plaintiff's calendars, diaries, and datebooks; Defendant's documents and communications re: Plaintiff's job duties; personnel files; documents re: Plaintiff's health or medical condition; numerous third party subpoenas, Defendant's employee, Mr. Romain's calendar; etc.; and 4) A pending in camera review of a flash drive of numerous calendar-related documents pertaining to Plaintiff's former supervisor, Mr. Romain, submitted by Defendant. At the previous March 28, 2017 hearing, the Court noted that discovery was getting out of hand in this case. [DE 61, pp. 1-2]. At that hearing, the Court took the time to give the parties' counsel each a copy of Chief Justice John Roberts' 2015 Year-End Report on the Judiciary, in which he stresses the importance of the parties' counsel cooperating with one another in the discovery process. The Court directed counsel to read the full Report. [DE 61, p. 2]; See Chief Justice John Roberts, 2015 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary (Jan. 19, 2017) https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2015year-endreport.pdf. (“The amendments may not look like a big deal at first glance, but they are. That is one reason I have chosen to highlight them in this report. For example, Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has been expanded by a mere eight words, but those are words that judges and practitioners must take to heart. Rule 1 directs that the Federal Rules ‘should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.’ The underscored words make express the obligation of judges and lawyer to work cooperatively in controlling the expense and time demands of litigation—an obligation given effect in the amendments that follow. The new passage highlights the point that lawyers—though representing adverse parties—have an affirmative duty to work together, and with the court, to achieve prompt and efficient resolutions of disputes.”) (“I cannot believe that many members of the bar went to law school because of a burning desire to spend their professional life wearing down opponents with creatively burdensome discovery requests or evading legitimate requests through dilatory tactics.”). All of the efforts of the Court appear to have been to no avail, and now the following motions are pending before the Court: *4 1) Discovery disputes re: a. Defendant's request for production of joint tax returns of Plaintiff and her husband. b. Plaintiff's request for Defendant's documents of communications between Plaintiff and any manager or supervisor concerning Plaintiff's health, which has since been narrowed down to a select group of managers and supervisors. c. Defendant's third-party subpoena to Florida Department of Transportation for Plaintiff's toll records. d. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery re: copies of Mr. Romain's calendar and emails related thereto, which have been submitted in camera to the Court for review. e. And then, the coup de grace—Plaintiff's deposition. This case, involving a single individual plaintiff bringing FMLA and ADA claims against a single corporate defendant, is apparently so difficult and earth-shattering that Plaintiff's deposition just cannot be completed without court intervention. Plaintiff sat for her first deposition on February 10, 2017 for over seven hours,[4] when it was ended by Plaintiff's counsel. Plaintiff sat for a second deposition on April 18, 2017 for almost 1½ hours,[5] when Plaintiff's counsel terminated the deposition. 2) Plaintiff has now filed a Motion for Protective Order for Sanctions Against Defendant for Conducting the Deposition in Bad Faith and for the Appointment of a Special Master to Oversee the Plaintiff's Continued Deposition [DE 63]. Plaintiff's counsel blames everything on Defendant's counsel. 3) Defendant has filed Defendant's Motion to Compel Conclusion of Plaintiff's Deposition and for Sanctions for Improperly Terminating Deposition and Obstructionist Deposition Tactics [DE 69]. Defendant's counsel blames everything on Plaintiff and on Plaintiff's counsel. In order to resolve these motions, the undersigned has had to spend many hours watching the first video deposition of Plaintiff dated February 10, 2017, and the second video deposition of Plaintiff dated April 18, 2017. III. DISCUSSION This Court has spent in excess of ten hours watching both video depositions of Plaintiff and reviewing the parties' cross-motions for sanctions, appointment of a Special Master, etc., regarding Plaintiff's two depositions. The Court's review has observed that Plaintiff was, at times, nonresponsive in her answers to simple deposition questions, either intentionally or unintentionally, which in part caused the deposition to veer off course. For example, Plaintiff, a relatively young woman, could not directly answer the year she graduated from high school, the year she graduated from college, the year she got married, the type of four-year bachelor's degree that she obtained, her positions at prior employers and the years she worked at prior employers, whether she had ever been terminated by a prior employer, as well as numerous other questions which simply called for a short “yes” or “no” answer which Plaintiff could not or would not answer. The parties' counsel on both sides—Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant's counsel—made matters worse at the two depositions by unnecessarily bickering during the deposition. Plaintiff's counsel repeatedly objected on “form” grounds, some specified and some unspecified, and Defendant's counsel only once asked Plaintiff's counsel to clarify the asserted problem with the form of his questions.[6] Plaintiff's counsel's “form” objections were excessive and at times unnecessary. Further, Defendant's counsel interrupted Plaintiff's counsel and Plaintiff multiple times, while Plaintiff's counsel did at times interrupt Defendant's counsel. *5 Each counsel requests sanctions against the other. Defendant's counsel also requests sanctions against Plaintiff. Pursuant to Rule 30(d)(2), “The court may impose an appropriate sanction—including the reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred by any party—on a person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of the deponent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2). A deposition is meant to proceed as examination and cross-examination of the deponent would proceed at trial under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(1); see Quantachrome Corp. v. Micrometrics Instrument Corp., 189 F.R.D. 697, 701 (S.D. Fla. 1999) (“ ‘Depositions frequently have been unduly prolonged, if not unfairly frustrated, by lengthy objection and colloquy, often suggesting how the deponent should respond’ ... Therefore, objections during a deposition preferably should be limited to those under Rule 32(d)(3).”) (citations omitted). The two depositions of Plaintiff were clearly unduly prolonged and frustrated in part by Plaintiff's nonresponsive answers and by the less than stellar conduct of both counsel. The two depositions did not proceed as examination and cross-examination of Plaintiff would at trial. Form Objections In this regard, at the April 18, 2017 second deposition of Plaintiff, Defendant's counsel asked approximately 152 substantive questions of Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel objected to approximately 59 of those questions based on “form.”[7] As stated in Henderson v. B&B Precast & Pipe, LLC, No. 4:13-CV-528 (CDL), 2014 WL 4063673 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 14, 2014), which discussed “form” objections, “this objection is meaningless standing alone and is contrary to what is contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id. at *1. When an objection is made solely as to “form,” such objection does not advise the questioning attorney of the defect in the question, thereby depriving the questioning attorney of an opportunity to cure the alleged improper question during the deposition. In Ross v. Baldwin Cty. Bd. of Educ., Civil Action No 06-0275-WS-B, 2008 WL 2020470 (S.D. Ala. May 9, 2008), the court overruled certain objections to testimony because the “form” objections made during the depositions were not proper objections without further clarification regarding the basis for the form objection. Id. at *3, n. 4. The problem with “form” objections was also carefully discussed by the district judge in Sec. Nat'l Bank of Sioux City, Iowa v. Abbot Labs., 299 F.R.D. 595 (N.D. Iowa 2014), rev'd sub nom., Sec. Nat'l Bank of Sioux City, Iowa v. Day, 800 F3d 936 (8th Cir. 2015). Although the Abbot Labs case was reversed as to the sanctions imposed, the court in that case did an excellent job of explaining why a mere “form” objection, without specifying why the form is improper (such as compound, leading, asked and answered, assumes facts not in evidence, etc.), is inefficient and frustrates the goals underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 601-02. Moreover, a recent Florida Bar Journal article provides an excellent review and discussion of the case law and rules pertaining to which objections are proper during a deposition and which objections are improper. See 90-AUG Fla. B.J. 56, J. Evan Gibbs III, Let's Get Objective About Objectionable Objections (July/August 2016) (stating that “unspecified ‘form’ objections do not actually alert the questioner to what the specified alleged defect is.”).[8] *6 The Court is well-aware that many attorneys have been taught that, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, all they are permitted to state at a deposition is “objection, form.” However, the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not support this position. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(c)(2) states, in relevant part: “An objection must be stated concisely in a non-argumentative and non-suggestive manner.” The Commentary to the 1993 amendment to Rule 30(c)(2)—formerly Rule 30(d)(1)—states, in part: While objections may, under the revised rule, be made during a deposition, they ordinarily should be limited to those that under Rule 32(d)(3) might be waived if not made at that time, i.e., objections on grounds that might be immediately obviated, removed, or cured, such as to the form of a question or the responsiveness of an answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) advisory committee's note to 1993 amendment. And, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(d)(3)(B) states: Objection to an Error or Irregularity. An objection to an error or irregularity at an oral examination is waived if: (i) it relates to the manner of taking the deposition, the form of a question or answer, the oath or affirmation, a party's conduct, or other matters that might have been corrected at that time; and (ii) it is not timely made during the deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(3)(B). These Rules, when considered together, state that if an attorney has an objection to the form of a question, the attorney must make the form objection during the deposition when the allegedly improperly-formed question is asked. These Rules do not, however, dictate that an attorney must only state “objection, form” during a deposition. In actuality, the better practice is for the attorney, in a non-argumentative and non-suggestive manner, to briefly state the specific form problem, such as “objection as to form, leading” or “objection as to form, compound question” so that the questioning attorney has an opportunity to correct the asserted form defect in his or her question at the deposition. It is clear that the intent behind these Rules is to require an attorney to lodge his or her form objection at the time the question is asked, thereby giving the questioning attorney an opportunity to fix the question, if necessary. This facilitates judicial and attorney economy. A procedure where an attorney can simply state “objection, form” repeatedly during a deposition, without specifying the specific nature of the form defect, is wholly inefficient, fails to alert the questioning attorney to the specific defect in the question, and allows the objecting attorney to subsequently conjure up numerous reasons why the form was improper months or years later in a motion to strike or exclude the deposition testimony. The court then has to rule on these motions when the entire issue could have been avoided by a proper, specific form objection and re-phrasing of the question by the questioning attorney at the time of the deposition. SeeHenderson v. B&B Precast & Pipe, LLC, No. 4:13-CV-528 (CDL), 2014 WL 4063673, *1 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 14, 2014) (“Allowing a litigator to file an extensive brief after the fact elaborating in great detail what was wrong with the form of the question when he failed to give the questioner at the deposition any clue as to the deficiencies in the question would be inconsistent with Rule 32 and contrary to resolving an action in a just, speedy, and inexpensive manner.”). *7 In sum, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a mere unspecified “form” objection is insufficient to comply with the spirit, intent and language of Rules 30(c)(2) and 32(d)(3)(B). Repeated unspecified “form” objections during a deposition are annoying, often confuse the deponent, and can frustrate a deposition. It is not too much to ask an attorney to specify the problem with the form of the question in a non-argumentative and non-suggestive manner by stating, for example, “objection as to form, leading.” The questioning attorney can then choose to rephrase the question, if necessary. Unfortunately, this procedure was not fully complied with in Plaintiff's two prior depositions. In the upcoming third deposition of Plaintiff, as discussed later in this Order, the parties' counsel shall adhere to these procedures. Termination of Deposition Further, under Rule 30(d)(3): At any time during a deposition, the deponent or a party may move to terminate or limit it on the ground that it is being conducted in bad faith or in a manner that unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses the deponent or party. The motion may be filed in the court where the action is pending or the deposition is being taken. If the objecting deponent or party so demands, the deposition must be suspended for the time necessary to obtain an order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(3). Rule 30(d)(3) “is a narrow procedure designed for extraordinary situations where an examination is being conducted in bad faith or in an unreasonable, annoying or oppressive manner.” Buckley Towers Condo., Inc. v. QBE Ins. Corp., No. 07-22988-CIV, 2008 WL 2645680, *9 (S.D. Fla. June. 26, 2008). Plaintiff's counsel terminated the continued deposition on April 18, 2017 after more bickering between Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant's counsel and Defendant's counsel's interruption of Plaintiff's testimony. The Plaintiff's deposition should have been concluded on April 18, 2017, but unfortunately it was not. IV. RULINGS The Court has carefully reviewed the parties' motions and papers and has heard argument of counsel. As stated in open court, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: I. Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order, for Sanctions Against Defendant for Conducting the Deposition in Bad Faith and for the Appointment of a Special Master to Oversee the Plaintiff's Continued Deposition [DE 63] 1. Plaintiff's Motion [DE 63] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as further discussed below in the Court's directions to the parties. 2. The Court will deny the appointment of a Special Master as it would be a further waste of court resources and judicial economy and cause further unnecessary delay. See United Surgical Assistants, LLC v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. and Aetna Health, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-211-T-30JSS, 2015 WL 7777535, *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 2015) (concluding that appointment of a Special Master is unnecessary in certain situations where the facts are straightforward, the legal issues are not especially complex, a single deposition is to be taken, and guidance has been provided by the court as to issues raised). Rather, the Court will supervise the third deposition of Plaintiff at the United States Federal Courthouse in West Palm Beach, Florida, as further discussed below. II. Defendant's Motion to Compel Conclusion of Plaintiff's Deposition and for Sanctions for Improperly Terminating Deposition and Obstructionist Deposition Tactics [DE 69] 1. Defendant's Motion [DE 69] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 2. The Court orders that the third and final deposition of Plaintiff shall be held on Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. at the United States Courthouse, 701 Clematis Street, room to be determined,[9] West Palm Beach, Florida. The Court will designate a room for the parties' use for the deposition that day. The party taking the deposition, in this case Defendant, shall bring its own Court Reporter and/or Videographer for use at the deposition, as necessary. Defendant shall have two hours to complete the deposition, Plaintiff will have one hour for cross-examination, and Defendant will have thirty minutes for redirect examination.[10] This deposition date shall not be changed absent the most compelling and urgent circumstances, supported by motion and affidavit. If either party files a motion and affidavit(s) to reschedule the deposition, and in the event the request to reschedule is granted, the rescheduled deposition shall be held earlier that week on a date and time selected by the Court. *8 3. Prior to the deposition, Plaintiff Vargas shall be instructed by her counsel to directly and specifically answer questions that she is asked to the best of her ability. Plaintiff shall directly respond “yes,” “no,” “I don't know,” or provide another direct response to appropriate questions without veering off into extraneous or nonresponsive areas. If Plaintiff believes a question requires an explanation or elaboration, she shall answer the question to the best of her ability with a “yes,” “no,” “I don't know,” or provide another direct response and then ask the questioning attorney if she may provide an explanation. If Defense counsel wishes to allow Plaintiff to provide an explanation or further elaboration, he may do so. However, when Defendant is done questioning Plaintiff, then during cross-examination, Plaintiff's counsel may ask questions of Plaintiff, if necessary and appropriate, to allow Plaintiff to elaborate on or explain any answers to Defense counsel's questions. Plaintiff's counsel may also, of course, question Plaintiff as to any further relevant areas of inquiry related to the direct examination. 4. If either counsel has a “form” objection to any question, counsel shall state: “Objection as to form,” and then succinctly and in a non-argumentative and non-suggestive manner specify the alleged problem with the form of the question, such as leading, argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence, or another valid form objection. For a leading question, for example, all that counsel has to say is “Objection as to form, leading.” An objection which merely states “form” shall be deemed to be no objection and waived by the party making the objection. No speaking objections shall be made, and the parties' counsel shall not unnecessarily bicker over the questions and answers. 5. Defendant's counsel shall not interrupt Plaintiff's answers at any time during the deposition. If Defense counsel believes that Plaintiff's response is nonresponsive or otherwise objectionable, he shall state so at the conclusion of the answer, and give Plaintiff an opportunity to make a responsive answer. If the dispute remains, the undersigned will, upon request, come into the deposition room and rule on the objection at that time. 6. The undersigned will be available in Chambers during the deposition. Either parties' counsel may telephone the Chambers of the undersigned during the deposition at (561) 803-3440, speak to one of the undersigned's law clerks, and request that the undersigned come to the deposition room and rule on any disputes or objections. The Court shall then rule on any objections or disputes—during the deposition—that are made by either side as to any issue that arises. See Matter of Subpoena, 117 F.R.D. 352, 353-54 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (the court concluded that it would preside over and supervise the conduct of a further deposition of a witness at the courthouse because of the contentious nature of the deposition); Mamman v. Chao, Civil Action No. 06-2688(MLC), 2008 WL 1995127 (D.N.J. May 7, 2008) (magistrate judge presided over a deposition to resolve confidentiality and privilege issues); GMAC Bank v. HTFC Corp., 248 F.R.D. 182 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (court concludes that judge will preside over a deposition at a date and time designated by the court due to misconduct at the previous deposition). The undersigned anticipates that his presence at the deposition will be rarely needed, if at all, since the Court expects Plaintiff and both parties' counsel to abide by this Order. Although the Court does not appreciate having to adopt this procedure, the Court sees no other reasonable alternative in light of the contentiousness of the prior two depositions of Plaintiff. 7. The parties' counsel shall read all the authorities cited in this Order prior to the continued deposition date, including Rule 30(c)(2) and Rule 32(d)(3)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the commentary to those Rules. 8. There shall be no bickering or unnecessary arguing among the parties' counsel at the Plaintiff's third deposition. Neither counsel shall intentionally interrupt the witness or opposing counsel. The parties' counsel shall act professionally, ethically and in compliance with this Court Order and the authorities cited by the Court. In the event they fail to do so, the court shall impose sanctions against the offending attorney and/or party. *9 9. Despite the frustration of the Court as to Plaintiff's two prior depositions and the pending cross-motions related to Plaintiff's depositions, the Court has decided not to impose sanctions against Plaintiff's counsel, Plaintiff, or Defendant's counsel for conduct which occurred in the first two depositions of Plaintiff. The reason for this is that the Court believes that both Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant's counsel are good, relatively young attorneys who, for some reason, have difficulty getting along in this case. The Court believes that both counsel have learned from this case and will conduct themselves appropriately, cooperatively, and professionally going forward. III. Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery [DE 18] 1. Request for Production #9 a. As to the subpoena to Plaintiff's accountant for Plaintiff's joint tax returns, the Court will not allow the subpoena at this time. Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel are hereby ordered to forthwith contact Plaintiff's accountant and determine if the accountant has the requested tax returns. Plaintiff shall then promptly file a notice notifying the Court whether the accountant has the tax returns at issue. If Plaintiff's accountant does have the requested joint tax returns, Plaintiff shall request them from the accountant and Plaintiff shall submit them to the Court ex parte for in camera review within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, with notice to Defendant, after which the Court will determine if they have to be produced to Defendant. If Plaintiffs accountant does not have the tax returns at issue, Plaintiff shall promptly file a notice advising the Court and Defendant of that fact. If Plaintiff's accountant does not have the tax returns at issue, the Court shall allow Plaintiff thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to receive the joint tax returns from the IRS and submit them to the Court ex parte for in camera review. b. Defendant shall be permitted to file a further motion to compel the joint tax returns if Plaintiff has not submitted the joint tax returns to the Court in camera on or before June 7, 2017. Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant's counsel shall speak to each other in a good faith, cooperative manner regarding this and all other discovery disputes in this case in an effort to resolve them without court intervention. c. The Court will subsequently rule on the issue of Plaintiff's production of the joint tax returns and whether or not they must be redacted. IV. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery [DE 27] 1. Request for Production #63 a. As to Plaintiff's request for Defendant's documents from January 1, 2014 through June 12, 2015 between or among Plaintiff and the agreed custodians that concerned Plaintiff's serious medical condition, disability, requests for accommodation and responses, requests for leave and responses, and requests to work from home and responses, the Joint Notice [DE 71, pp. 2-3] had stated that Plaintiff claimed certain dates/weeks were missing. At the hearing, the parties represented to the Court that all responsive documents have now been produced. b. As to Plaintiff's request for Defendant's documents from January 1, 2014 through June 12, 2015 between or among Plaintiff and Ms. Pereto, Mr. Will, and Mr. Smith that concerned Plaintiff's serious medical condition, disability, requests for accommodation and responses, requests for leave and responses, and requests to work from home and responses, the Court finds that Plaintiff's request for these communications is relevant in light of the questions that Defendant asked of Plaintiff at her deposition and the issues raised in this case. The burden upon Defendant to produce such documents is also minimal as they should be few in number. However, the parties' counsel shall confer and attempt to limit the number of documents and/or search terms in a reasonable and proportional manner, if necessary. *10 c. Defendant will search for responsive documents from January 1, 2014 through June 12, 2015, using the agreed upon search terms and produce responsive documents to Plaintiff on or before June 7, 2017. d. The Court also reserves jurisdiction on the possible cost contribution of Plaintiff to Defendant regarding Plaintiff's documentary discovery requests. V. Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Third-Party Subpoenas Duces Tecum or in the Alternative, Motion for Protective Order [DE 51] 1. As to the third-party subpoena to the Florida Department of Transportation seeking toll records of Plaintiff, the Court will allow the subpoena at this time. Defendant is attempting to discover whether Plaintiff falsely claimed she was at work when she was not, especially when her supervisor, Mr. Romain, was outside of the United States. The Court finds that Plaintiff was evasive or nonresponsive in many respects with her answers at her deposition, either intentionally or unintentionally, and the Court finds that this supports the issuance of the subpoena. Further, the subpoena is for a short, relevant time period of approximately three months. After balancing the right to privacy of Plaintiff, and the right to discovery on the part of Defendant, and after considering all of the Rule 26 factors, the Court will allow the subpoena to FDOT. VI. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery [DE 54] 1. Request for Production #19 i. Defendant has submitted Mr. Romain's calendar and emails related thereto from January 1, 2014 to June 12, 2015, to the Court ex parte for in camera review. The Court is in the process of reviewing the documents and will issue a ruling on which entries, if any, need to be produced to Plaintiff. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 5th day of May, 2017. Footnotes [1] Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [DE 6] was filed on September 1, 2016 and is fully briefed and pending disposition. [2] (1) Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery [DE 18] dated January 19, 2017; (2) Defendant's Reply in Support of its Motion to Compel Discovery [DE 26] on February 7, 2017; (3) Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Confidentiality Order [DE 32] on February 13, 2017; (4) Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery [DE 26] on February 21, 2017; (5) Defendant's Notice of Status of Discovery Issues [DE 40] on March 1, 2017, which was filed past the deadline (and not jointly) allegedly due to the parties' counsel's failure to fully confer (See DE 40, n. 1); (6) Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Notice of Supplemental Authority [DE 45] on March 7, 2017; (7) Defendant's Joint Notice of Discovery Issues [DE 48] on March 13, 2017; (8) Defendant's Notice of Status of Email Search [DE 50] on March 17, 2017; (9) Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Third Party Subpoenas [DE 53] on March 23, 2017; (10) Defendant's Supplemental Joint Notice of Pending Discovery Issues [DE 55] on March 24, 2017; (11) Defendant's Notice of Updated Status of Email Search [DE 59] on March 27, 2017; (12) Defendant's Notice of Submission of Discovery Materials for in camera review [DE 65] on April 20, 2017; (13) Defendant's Notice of Submission of Plaintiff's Deposition Transcripts [DE 68] on April 21, 2017; (14) Defendant's Motion to Compel Conclusion of Plaintiff's Deposition and for Sanctions for Plaintiff's Counsel Improperly Terminating Plaintiff's Deposition [DE 69] on April 21, 2017; (15) Defendant's Joint Notice of Pending Discovery Issues [DE 71] on April 24, 2017; (16) Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order and for Sanctions for Defendant's Conducting Plaintiff's Deposition in Bad Faith [DE 72] on April 25, 2017; and (17) Defendant's Reply in Support of Defendant's Motion to Compel Conclusion of Plaintiff's Deposition [DE 75] on April 28, 2017. [3] (1) Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Subpoena Directed to a third party [DE 16] on January 16, 2017; (2) Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery [DE 22] on February 3, 2017; (3) Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Confidentiality Order [DE 24] on February 6, 2017; (4) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery [DE 27] on February 7, 2017; (5) Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Confidentiality Order [DE 33] on February 13, 2017; (7) Plaintiff's version of the Parties' Joint Notice of Pending Discovery Issues [DE 39] on March 1, 2017, giving Plaintiff's spin on the conferral process (See DE 39, n. 1); (8) Plaintiff's Joint Notice Regarding Pending Discovery Issues [DE 43] on March 6, 2017; (9) Plaintiff's Notice of Supplemental Authority [DE 44] on March 6, 2017; (10) Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Response [DE 46] on March 7, 2017; (11) Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Notice of Supplemental Authority [DE 49] on March 14, 2017; (12) Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Third Party Subpoenas [DE 51] on March 20, 2017; (13) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery [DE 54] on March 24, 2017; (14) Plaintiff's Motion for Assistance in Scheduling Deposition Dates for Defendant and its Witnesses [DE 56] on March 24, 2017; (15) Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Third Party Subpoenas [DE 58] on March 27, 2017; (16) Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order and Sanctions against Defendant for Conducting Plaintiff's Deposition in Bad Faith [DE 63] on April 19, 2017; (17) Plaintiff's Notice of Filing Exhibits [DE 64] on April 20, 2017; (18) Plaintiff's Notice of Filing Deposition Transcript of Plaintiff [DE 67] on April 21, 2017; and (19) Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Conclusion of Plaintiff's Deposition and for Sanctions [DE 73] on April 26, 2017. [4] The February 10, 2017 deposition of Plaintiff began at 10:05 a.m. and ended at 5:19 p.m. [DE 67-1; DE 67-2]. [5] The April 18, 2017 deposition of Plaintiff began at 4:29 p.m. and ended at 5:55 p.m. [DE 67-3]. [6] At one point, Defendant's counsel did ask Plaintiff's counsel what the basis of her “form” objection was, but Plaintiff's counsel stated “If she reads it back. I've already forgotten.” Plaintiff's counsel then says the question was “confusing.” [See Feb. 10, 2017 Deposition of Plaintiff, p. 25, Lines 19-24 found at DE 68-1, p. 8]. Defendant's counsel did then rephrase the question. This led to more questions which were objected to by Plaintiff's counsel on the basis of “form.” The court reporter then stated, “Can you guys stop talking over each other, please?” Id. at p. 26, lines 5-12, found at DE 68-1, p. 9. [7] To be clear, some of the form objections lodged by Plaintiff's counsel did properly include a basis for why the form of the question was allegedly improper, but many did not. [8] In our District, Senior U.S. District Judge Gonzalez has also noted that it is improper for an attorney to instruct a witness not to answer a question based on form and relevancy objections. Quantachrome, 189 F.R.D. at 700. In Quantachrome, the court stated: Counsel are reminded that Rule 30(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure instructs that the examination and cross-examination of deponents should generally proceed as it would at trial. Counsel for both sides, therefore, should refrain from conduct that crosses the line between proper representation of their clients and improper interference in depositions. Id. at 701. [9] The parties shall contact the Chambers of the undersigned at (561) 803-3440 two days before the deposition to inquire as to which room the deposition will take place in. [10] The allotted time is exclusive of any breaks or lunchtime. If this time proves insufficient, the parties' counsel may request additional time, based upon good cause, so long as the deposition is fully completed on May 18, 2017. The undersigned will be present in the courthouse on May 18, 2017, and will be available to come into the deposition room and rule on requests for additional time upon oral request of either party made to the Chambers of the undersigned.