*1 THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Compel Proper Answers to Defendant's Second Set of Interrogatories and Responses to Defendant's Second Set of Requests for Production and Memorandum of Law in Support (“Motion”) (Doc. 142), and Plaintiff's response in opposition thereto (“Response”) (Doc. 143). Upon consideration of the parties’ submissions and for the reasons stated herein, the Motion is due to be DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND[1]

Pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 3.01, Defendant moves the Court for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide proper answers to Defendant's Second Set of Interrogatories, served on March 23, 2019, and to produce responsive materials to Defendant's Second Set of Request for Production served on March 29, 2019. (Doc. 142 at 1.) Defendant claims that its Second Set of Interrogatories, numbered 14 through 19, sought to obtain an overview of the four elements of the patented inventions (Form Designer, form file, Form Viewer, and data file), “in an effort to obtain an understanding of the counterevidence in this case.” (Id. at 3.) Defendant also asserts that it served its Second Request for Production, numbered 41 through 49, “related to [its] Second Interrogatories” and with the purpose of “obtaining an overview of the elements discussed in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.” (Id. at 8.) Defendant claims that Plaintiff's responses and objections to its Second Set of Interrogatories and Second Request for Production of Documents were improper and incomplete and asks the Court to compel Plaintiff to supplement its responses and to award reasonable attorney's fees as relief. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff, on the other hand, counters that Defendant's Motion should be denied, inter alia, because it fails to comport with the Local Rules and because Plaintiff's responses and objections to the Interrogatories and the Request for Production were proper and should be sustained. (See Doc. 143.)

II. STANDARD

It is clear that the parties may obtain discovery:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The rules “strongly favor full discovery whenever possible.” Farnsworth v. Procter & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1543, 1547 (11th Cir. 1985). “The discovery process is designed to fully inform the parties of the relevant facts involved in their case.” United States v. Pepper's Steel & Alloys, Inc., 132 F.R.D. 695, 698 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 1990) (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947)). “The overall purpose of discovery under the Federal Rules is to require the disclosure of all relevant information so that the ultimate resolution of disputed issues in any civil action may be based on a full and accurate understanding of the true facts, and therefore embody a fair and just result.” Oliver v. City of Orlando, No. 6:06-cv-1671-Orl-31DAB, 2007 WL 3232227, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2007) (citing United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682 (1958)). Discovery is intended to operate with minimal judicial supervision unless a dispute arises and one of the parties files a motion requiring judicial intervention. Furthermore, “[d]iscovery in this district should be practiced with a spirit of cooperation and civility.” Middle District Discovery (2015) at 3.

*2 Motions to compel discovery under Rule 37(a) are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. See Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Westrope, 730 F.2d 729, 731 (11th Cir.1984). The trial court's exercise of discretion regarding discovery orders will be sustained absent a finding of abuse of that discretion to the prejudice of a party. See Westrope, 730 F.2d at 731. The party bringing a motion to compel discovery “bears the burden of demonstrating that the information it seeks is relevant.” Costa v. Metro. Life. Ins. Co., No. 6:17-cv-714-Orl-40TBS, 2018 WL 1635642, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2018). For the Court to be able to rule on a motion to compel, it must “be specifically targeted to specific requests and must have reasons why the motion should be granted.” Newman v. Sun Capital, Inc., No. 2:09-cv-445-FtM-29SPC, 2010 WL 11470980, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2010).

“A party objecting to a request for production must: (1) ‘state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons;’ (2) ‘state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection;’ and (3) ‘[a]n objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.’ ” Local Access, LLC v. Peerless Network, Inc., No. 6:17-cv-236-Orl-40TBS, 2018 WL 2938393, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 12, 2018) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)). “The rules leave no place for boilerplate style objections.” Id. (citations omitted). Local Rule 3.04(a) provides:

M.D. Fla. R. 3.04(a). Local rules “have the force of law,” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (internal quotations and citation omitted), and “[t]he importance of these Rules cannot be overstated.” U.S. v. Fleming, No. 3:09-cv-153-J-34TEM, 2010 WL 5128293, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2010).

III. DISCUSSION

First, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's responses and objections to Interrogatory Nos. 14 through 19 were improper. (Doc. 142 at 3-7; Doc. 142-1.) In its Motion, Plaintiff specifically quotes Interrogatory No. 14 as follows:

(Id. at 4.) Rather than quoting Plaintiff's objections and response in full thereafter, Defendant included a partial excerpt of Plaintiff's objections to Interrogatory No. 14 and addressed only some of Plaintiff's objections claiming they were baseless, frivolous, and without merit. However, Defendant failed to address all of Plaintiff's objections, and based on Plaintiff's arguments in its Response, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff's objections are due to be sustained.[2] Therefore, the Motion is due to be denied as to Interrogatory No. 14 based on Defendant's failure to comply with Local Rule 3.04(a), but also based on Defendant's failure to establish relevance and proportionality of the scope of this Interrogatory as evidenced by Plaintiff's arguments in support of its response and objections.

*3 Second, with respect to Interrogatories Nos. 15-19, Defendant also failed to comply with Local Rule 3.04(a). Rather than quote each interrogatory followed by a quote of Plaintiff's corresponding response and objections, Defendant merely stated as follows: “Plaintiff's objections to Interrogatories No. 15-19 essentially mimic its objection to Interrogatory No. 14, and therefore, Defendant hereby incorporates its responses to those objections and Defendant requests that this Court compel responses to all six interrogatories for the same reasons as set forth above.” (Doc. 142 at 7.) Again, Defendant's failure to comply with Local Rule 3.04(a) is fatal to its Motion with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 15-19.

Moreover, as noted by Plaintiff, Defendant's failure to comply with Local Rule 3.04(a) is fatal to its Motion with respect to its Second Set of Requests for Production.[3] In its Motion, Defendant again failed to include a quote of each Request for Production followed by a quotation in full of Plaintiff's response and objections. As such, Defendant failed to provide the Court with sufficient information from which it could properly address its claims. Although the undersigned finds it is not necessary to address Plaintiff's substantive arguments in detail, Plaintiff's arguments are well-taken. Thus, based on Defendant's failure to comply with the Local Rules, and Local Rule 3.04(a) in particular, the Motion is due to be denied.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Defendant's Motion (Doc. 142) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, on December 9, 2019.