(Doc. 64 at 16-17).

Plaintiff argues that Defendants Artemis Lifestyles Services, Inc., Bella Collina Property Owners Association, Inc., Aegis Community Management Solutions, Inc., and Ryan Law Group, PLLC, should be required to furnish the requested financial information because the amended complaint seeks punitive damages (Doc. 64 at ¶¶ 3-6). This is a reference to Counts III-V which allege violations by Defendants of the Florida Consumer Collections Practices Act (the “Act”) Fla. Stat. § 559.72(9) (Doc. 16 at 17-20). These counts include prayers “for punitive damages, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 559.72(2),” which provides civil remedies for violations of the Act. Id. The statute states in part that “[t]he court may award punitive damages and may provide such equitable relief as it deems necessary or proper, ...”. Id.

Defendants have filed a response to the motion in which they argue that their net worth is irrelevant because Plaintiffs have not complied with Fla. Stat. § 768.72 (Doc. 66 at 5-8). Before the Court can reach the merits of this argument it must deal with multiple threshold issues. First, Defendants’ response to the motion to compel was filed out-of-time. This case is governed by the Standing Order on Discovery Motions entered May 11, 2020 which states that any party opposing a motion to compel: “... shall file a response no later than seven calendar days after the Motion is filed (see Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a)); a failure to file a timely response will result in the Motion being deemed unopposed.” (Doc. 35, ¶ 6) (emphasis in original). See also Local Rule 3.01(c) (“If a party fails to timely respond, the motion is subject to treatment as unopposed.”). Second, the Standing Order on Discovery limits Defendants’ response to 500 words exclusive of the caption, signature block, and certification (Id., ¶ 2). It appears to me that this order has been violated. Third, to the extent Defendants deem their financial information confidential it does not appear that they have complied with Judge Kelly's Standing Order Regarding Confidential Information (Doc. 2, 6:18-mc-21-Orl-GJK). The Standing Order on Discovery directs counsel to the Standing Order on Confidential Information (Doc. 35, ¶ 3).

*2 If the Court grants Defendants dispensation due to the seriousness of disclosing financial information and because Defendants may have a meritorious argument, there is a further problem with their position. When Plaintiffs requested financial discovery, Defendants interposed boilerplate objections which fail to explain their position, articulated in their response to the motion to compel. Since the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended effective December 1, 2015, Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 has required a party objecting to requests for production to: (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.” The rule leaves no place for boilerplate objections. Polycarpe v. Seterus, Inc., 6:16-cv-1606-RBD-TBS, 2017 WL 2257571, *2 (M.D. Fla. May 23, 2017). As the court observed in Liguria Foods, Inc. v. Griffith Laboratories, Inc., No. C 14-3041-MWB, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35370, at *32 (N.D. Iowa Mar. 13, 2017), “ ‘[t]he key requirement in both Rules 33 and 34 is that objections require ‘specificity.’ ” So-called “ ‘generalized objections are inadequate and tantamount to not making any objection at all.’ ” Id. at *36 (quoting Jarvey, Boilerplate Discovery Objections, 61 Drake L. Rev. at 916). Defendants’ objections failed to comply with Rule 34. The Court also notes that the language “not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” is not contained in the explanation of the scope of discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

After due consideration, the Court treats Plaintiffs’ motion as unopposed. It further finds that Defendants failed to interpose timely, proper objections to requests for production numbered 45 and 46 and therefore, those objections are waived. See Reliance Ins. Co. v. Core Carriers, Inc., No. 3:06-cv-585-HES-MCR, 2008 WL 2414041, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 11, 2008) (when a party fails to timely object to interrogatories, the objections it may have raised are deemed waived). Now, it is ordered as follows:

(1) On or before June 8, 2021, Defendants must produce all documents responsive to requests 45 and 46;

(2) The discovery period is extended until June 15, 2021, for the limited purpose of issues regarding Defendants producing documents responsive to requests 45 and 46; and

(3) If Defendants withhold any responsive documents on the basis of privilege, then simultaneously with the production of responsive documents, Defendants shall serve Plaintiffs with a privilege log that complies with Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly's Standing Order Regarding Privileged and Protected Information, Case No. 6:18-mc-20-Orl-GJK, which can be found on the Court's website.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on June 1, 2021.[1]