I. Background

On January 24, 2019, discovery opened in this case. Doc. 32. Pursuant to the Case Management and Scheduling Order (CMSO), discovery closed on April 17, 2020. Doc. 33. The parties recently confirmed this discovery deadline through an April 1, 2020 “Stipulation and Joint Motion” granted by the Court. Docs. 49; 50. About 15 months after discovery opened—specifically, between 2:55 p.m. and 7:33 p.m. on April 17, 2020 (the discovery deadline)—Plaintiff and Defendant Foundation Partners Group, LLC (Foundation) filed crossing discovery motions. Docs. 52 (to extend time to compel mental health examination); 53 (to compel written discovery and answers to deposition questions) [hereinafter, Foundation's Motion]; 54 (to compel written discovery and an additional three-hour deposition) [hereinafter, Plaintiff's Motion]. All of those motions relate back to discovery served more than a year ago. Responses to those motions were initially due May 1, 2020.

On April 28, 2020, Plaintiff and Foundation filed a “Joint Stipulation,” seeking from the Court a 14-day extension to respond to the motions. Doc. 55. In support, the parties stated that they were in the process of continuing to confer and limit the issues before the Court; there was also a passing reference to the current public health situation. Id. The affected parties sought another 14 days to respond to the discovery motions because they were conferring and working together to resolve these discovery disputes after the close of the discovery period. And this after the Court denied an initial discovery motion for failure to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g). Doc. 48.

Given the lengthy discovery period and parties’ initial failures to confer properly or timely raise these discovery issues, the Court found that the reasons proffered by the parties did not constitute good cause for an extension of time. Doc. 56. The Court stated that “[t]he discovery motions are likely to be denied as untimely anyway, although the Court will consider the responses filed, take the motions under advisement, and rule accordingly.” Id. Regardless, given the Court's desire to have the parties resolve these issues amicably on their own accord, the parties were given an additional week to continue to confer.

On May 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to Foundation's Motion (Doc. 60, Plaintiff's response), and Foundation filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 62, Foundation's Response). In light of the responses, Foundation's Motion and Plaintiff's Motion are now ripe for review.

II. Discussion

There is significant case law in this District that supports a finding that the parties’ belated discovery motions are unreasonable and untimely. “While there is no local or federal rule setting a precise deadline for the filing of a motion to compel, it is clear that any such motion must be filed within a ‘reasonable time’ period.” Coleman v. Starbucks, 2015 WL 2449582, at *8 (M.D. Fla. May 22, 2015) (citations omitted). “By virtue of failing to address a discovery violation when the movant first learns of the issue, a party risks waiving the issue.” Goears v. L.A. Entertainment Group, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91093 (M.D. Fla. June 14, 2017) (citations omitted); see also, Oil Consulting Enterprise, Inc. v. Hawker Beechcraft Global Customer Support, LLC, 2017 WL 7355128, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2017) (“[F]iling a substantive motion to compel on the last day of discovery does not comply with the policy of the Middle District of Florida for the completion of discovery and the resolution of issues related to discovery prior to the discovery deadline.”).

*2 Here, discovery was open for over 15 months, and the discovery requests underlying the motions were served at the outset of that discovery period. However, these discovery issues were not properly raised to the Court until late on the afternoon and into the evening on the day of the discovery deadline. Nevertheless, the Court will consider each Motion in turn.

A. Plaintiff's Motion

In her Motion (Doc. 54), Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Foundation “to produce documents responsive to Plaintiff's discovery requests and to produce Robert Bukala for up to three hours of additional deposition examination.” Doc. 54 at 1. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to compel: (1) an additional three hours to depose Mr. Bukala (Doc. 54 at 3-4); (2) missing attachments to documents and emails (Doc. 54 at 4-5); and (3) documents responsive to discovery requests: 5, 16, 15, 18, 21, 27, 36, 38, 42 (Doc. 54 at 6-14).

As an initial matter, Plaintiff's Motion appears to be resolved with respect to the missing attachments and discovery requests 5, 15, 16, 21, 36, and 38. Plaintiff explains that it has reached an agreement with Foundation as to those documents and requests, and, in Foundation's Response, Foundation states that it has produced responses as agreed to discovery requests 5, 15, 16, 21, 36, and 38. See Doc. 54 at 5 n.3; 6-8;10-14. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion is due to be denied as moot to the extent it seeks to compel the missing attachments and responses to discovery requests 5, 15, 16, 21, 36, and 38. Thus, the only issues remaining for discussion are the requests for an additional three hours to depose Mr. Bukala and documents responsive to discovery requests 18, 27, and 42.

i. Mr. Bukala's Deposition

Plaintiff argues that the Court should compel Mr. Bukala to appear for additional deposition testimony. See Doc. 54 at 3-4. The Court disagrees. The operative complaint in this case was filed on November 19, 2018, and Plaintiff did not depose Mr. Bukala until March 2, 2020. See id. at 2. With a discovery cutoff date of April 17, 2020, nearly a year and a half after the Complaint was filed, Plaintiff waited until only a month and a half before the discovery cutoff date to depose Mr. Bukala. Notably, in her Motion, Plaintiff does not explain the timing of Mr. Bukala's deposition, the fact that discovery is now closed, or the fact that Plaintiff's Motion was filed on the afternoon of the discovery deadline; nor does Plaintiff argue that she diligently worked to meet the discovery deadline in this case but was unable to do so. The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff's apparent suggestion that certain documents were produced to her too late or that written discovery was too voluminous to be adequately covered in a single deposition. Plaintiff did not depose Mr. Bukala early in the case or immediately move to compel additional deposition time when it became apparent Plaintiff might desire more time. Further, Plaintiff requested the written discovery that has been produced here, and so should have been on notice that a deposition covering the volume of information requested and produced may have required additional time. Plaintiff has therefore failed to establish good cause for an extension of time beyond the discovery deadline.[1]

*3 Additionally, “[b]y virtue of failing to address a discovery violation when the movant first learns of the issue, a party risks waiving the issue.” Goears, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91093 (M.D. Fla. June 14, 2017) (citations omitted); see also, Oil Consulting Enterprise, 2017 WL 7355128 at *3 (“[F]iling a substantive motion to compel on the last day of discovery does not comply with the policy of the Middle District of Florida for the completion of discovery and the resolution of issues related to discovery prior to the discovery deadline.”). Given the lengthy discovery period and Plaintiff's initial failures to confer properly or timely raise this discovery issue, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion is due to be denied with respect to Mr. Bukala's deposition.

ii. Discovery Requests 18 and 27

Plaintiff's Discovery Request 18 requests: “For the time period 2017 to date, all documents concerning Hepatitis B vaccination status for Defendant's employees.” Doc. 54 at 7. Discovery Request 27 requests: “[Foundation's] OSHA 300 logs and 301 Forms from 2016 to present.” Doc. 54 at 10. Foundation objects to both of these requests on grounds that they are irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Doc. 54 at 7-9; 10-11.

Specifically, with respect to Request 18, Foundation argues that a request for all documents “concerning” vaccinations is broad and unclear and “unfairly places the onus of nonproduction on the recipient of the request.” Doc. 54 at 7 (internal citations omitted). Additionally, Foundation explains that Request 18 is not reasonably limited in scope since it requests documents “regarding a more than three-year time period, during 90% of which Plaintiff was not employed by [Foundation].” Id. at 8. Finally, Foundation objects that Request 18 seeks HIPAA protected documents. Id. In her response, Plaintiff asserts that she offered to limit the timing of this Request (an offer Foundation rejected) and asserts that the Request pertains to information that is relevant for various reasons. See id. at 8. However, Plaintiff does not address Foundation's objection that Request 18 is overbroad and vague as written or Foundation's objection that the Request seeks HIPAA-protected information. Thus, at least two of Foundation's objections stand unopposed. Additionally, the Court agrees with Foundation's objection that Request 18 is vague and overbroad; a request for “all” documents “concerning” the vaccination status of all of Foundation's employees within a multi-year time period, when Plaintiff was employed by foundation for what appears to be approximately four months, is not appropriately tailored. Accordingly, the Court finds that the objections are due to be sustained and that Plaintiff's Motion is due to be denied with respect to Discovery Request 18.

With respect to Discovery Request 27, Foundation argues specifically that “the request for all OSHA 300 logs or 301 forms made at any of [Foundation's] 139 facilities (regardless of whether Plaintiff was even aware of them or if they were in any way connected to any concern that Plaintiff allegedly raised) is unduly burdensome, and overly broad on its face.” Id. at 10. Foundation goes on to explain that Request 27 “appears to be a mere fishing expedition for documents which would be completely irrelevant to Plaintiff's alleged violations of any laws, rules or regulations during her employment and whether she was retaliated against such complaints.” Id. Finally, Foundation objects to Request 27 on grounds that it is not reasonably limited in temporal scope or geographic proximity; Foundation asserts that Plaintiff was only employed by Foundation for a four-month time period and the documents requested span a three-year period “during more than 90% of which Plaintiff was not employed by [Foundation].” Id. at 10.

*4 In her response, Plaintiff asserts that she offered to limit the timing of this Request (an offer Foundation rejected) and asserts that the Request is relevant for various reasons. See id. at 10-11. However, Plaintiff does not address Foundation's objections related to the request being unduly burdensome or not reasonably limited in temporal scope or geographic proximity. See id. Thus, at least two of Foundation's objections stand unopposed, and, further, the Court agrees that the Request is not appropriately tailored with respect to time or location. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion is due to be denied with respect to Discovery Request 27.

iii. Discovery Request 42

Plaintiff's Discovery Request 42 requests: “Documents recording or evidencing [Foundation's] revenues, profits, and net worth for the years 2016 through the present.” Doc. 54 at 13. Foundation's boilerplate objection states, in its entirety: “[Foundation] objects to this request to the extent it is premature to seek such documents. They are irrelevant and immaterial at this phase of the litigation.” Id. at 14. This objection is meaningless, meritless and, due to be overruled. See, e.g., Asphalt Paving Sys., Inc. v. General Combustion Corp., Case No. 6:15-cv-49-Orl-41TBS, 2016 WL 3167712, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 7, 2016) (“The Court does not consider frivolous, conclusory, general, or boilerplate objections.”); Siddiq v. Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp., Case No. 6:11-cv-69-Orl-19GJK, 2011 WL 6936485, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2011) (“Objections which state that a discovery request is ‘vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome’ are, by themselves, meaningless, and are deemed without merit by this Court.”) (citations omitted); Middle District Discovery (2015) at 12 (“Objections to requests for production should be specific, not generalized .... Boilerplate objections such as ‘the request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and outside the scope of permissible discovery’ are insufficient without a full, fair explanation particular to the facts of the case.”). Further, to the extent Plaintiff attempts to make new or additional objections to the discovery at issue by response to Plaintiff's Motion, those new objections are waived as they were not asserted in response to the discovery requests. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion is due to be granted with respect to Discovery Request 42.

B. Foundation's Motion

In its Motion, Foundation seeks an order compelling Plaintiff “to fully and completely answer interrogatories regarding her claimed damages, to amend her Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) initial disclosures, and to answer deposition inquiries regarding her OSHA retaliation complaint.” Doc. 53 at 1. Specifically, Foundation seeks to compel: (1) responses to deposition questions related to Plaintiff's OSHA complaint; and (2) documents responsive to the following discovery requests: interrogatories 19, 21, 22, and 24. See id. at 3-7. As an initial matter, Foundation's Motion appears to be resolved with respect to interrogatory 22; Plaintiff explains that she is not withholding any information based on the listed objections. See id. at 5. Accordingly, the Court finds that Foundation's Motion is due to be denied as moot with respect to interrogatory 22. This leaves the answers to the OSHA deposition questions and interrogatories 19, 21, and 24 for discussion.

i. OSHA Deposition Questions

According to Foundation, Plaintiff filed an OSHA complaint on February 14, 2018 and amended that complaint on April 11, 2018. Doc. 53 at 15. Foundation argues that Plaintiff improperly refused to answer questions related to the OSHA complaint during a deposition on January 9, 2020 based on attorney-client privilege, which Foundation argues does not apply. See Doc. 53 at 10-16. Thus, Foundation argues that the Court should compel Plaintiff to answer Foundation's deposition questions regarding the filing of Plaintiff's OSHA complaint. See Doc. 53 at 10-16. The Court disagrees.

*5 The operative complaint in this case was filed on November 19, 2018, and Foundation did not conduct this deposition until January 9, 2020. Doc. 53 at 10. In its Motion, Foundation does not mention the date upon which it initially deposed Plaintiff, the fact that discovery is now closed, or the fact that Foundation's Motion was filed on the afternoon of the discovery deadline; nor does Foundation argue that it diligently worked to meet the discovery deadline in this case but was unable to do so. Foundation has therefore failed to establish good cause for an extension of time beyond the discovery deadline.

Additionally, “[b]y virtue of failing to address a discovery violation when the movant first learns of the issue, a party risks waiving the issue.” Goears, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91093 (M.D. Fla. June 14, 2017) (citations omitted); see also, Oil Consulting Enterprise, 2017 WL 7355128 at *3 (“[F]iling a substantive motion to compel on the last day of discovery does not comply with the policy of the Middle District of Florida for the completion of discovery and the resolution of issues related to discovery prior to the discovery deadline.”). Given the lengthy discovery period and Foundation's initial failures to confer properly or timely raise this discovery issue, the Court finds that Foundation's Motion is due to be denied with respect to the OSHA deposition questions.

ii. Interrogatory 19

Foundation's Interrogatory 19 states:

Doc. 53 at 3. The crux of Foundation's argument that Plaintiff's response to Interrogatory 19 was deficient is that “Plaintiff still failed to provide any specific information about where, and if at all, Plaintiff had actually applied for employment and searched for work.” Doc. 53 at 4. But Foundation did not seek this information in its interrogatory; thus, its objection is based on the contention that Plaintiff did not answer a question that Plaintiff never asked. Because this is an insufficient basis for finding a response to an interrogatory deficient, Foundation's objection is due to be overruled. Accordingly, the Court finds that Foundation's Motion is due to be denied with respect to Interrogatory 19.

iii. Interrogatory 21

Foundation's Interrogatory 21 states:

Doc. 53 at 4. Plaintiff objected to this Interrogatory on grounds that it is “overbroad, not proportional to the needs of the case, and unduly invasive of Plaintiff's privacy,” as well as on relevance grounds. Id. Specifically, Plaintiff objected that the Interrogatory “requests personal health information regarding any medical or other health treatment Plaintiff has received regardless of whether such treatment or consultation has any connection to any issues in this case.” Id. In its response, Foundation asserts that this Interrogatory seeks information “about medical treatment Plaintiff has sought relating to allegations in the Complaint,” however, there is no such limiting language in the Interrogatory itself.[2] Doc. 53 at 5; see Doc. 53 at 4. Accordingly, Plaintiff's objection on the grounds of overbreadth and relevance is well-taken; Plaintiff's objection is due to be sustained. The Court will not exercise its discretion at this late stage of the case to limit or re-write the Interrogatory to make it compliant. Accordingly, the Court finds that Foundation's Motion is due to be denied with respect to Interrogatory 21.

iv. Interrogatory 24

*6 Foundation's Interrogatory 24 states:

Doc. 53 at 6.

Plaintiff provided a lengthy response to the Interrogatory separated into “back pay,” “reinstatement of front pay,” “compensatory damages,” “punitive damages,” and “attorney's fees and costs of litigation.” Id. at 6-7. Foundation's argument for deficiency rests on the contention that Plaintiff did not provide “precise calculations of how Plaintiff arrived at the amounts sought.” Id. at 7. Foundation argues that “[w]hile Plaintiff's response provides some sort of calculations and is more detailed than her previous response to the same inquiry, the response is still evasive and incomplete and lacks crucial computational information ....” Id. Upon review, the Court finds that Foundation's objection to Interrogatory 24 is due to be overruled. Plaintiff provided a lengthy substantive response, and Foundation itself recognizes that Plaintiff's response includes details and calculations—Foundation's main argument appears to be that Plaintiff did not provide a sufficiently detailed mathematical formula. See id. However, Foundation asked for “an explanation of how you computed each item of damages, including any mathematical formula used.” Doc. 53 at 6. Plaintiff provided an explanation and, to the extent Plaintiff did not provide a specific “mathematical formula,” Interrogatory 24 only seeks such information if it was used. Accordingly, the Court finds that Foundation's Motion is due to be denied with respect to Interrogatory 24.

C. Attorney Fees and Costs

Although both parties seek attorney fees and costs from the other party, given the circumstances of this case, the Court finds that such an award would be unjust. Accordingly, both parties’ Motions are due to be denied to the extent they seek attorney fees or costs.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated herein, it is ORDERED that:

ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 26, 2020.

“Good cause” is the standard the Court applies when a party files a motion for extension of time prior to the expiration of the discovery deadline. FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1).

In its Motion, Foundation groups Interrogatory 21 with Interrogatory 22 and argues that Plaintiff's responses to both are deficient for the same reasons. See Doc. 53 at 4. However, Interrogatory 22 includes language that limits the information sought to information related to any allegation in Plaintiff's complaint, while Interrogatory 21 does not. See id. The Court does not address the substance of Interrogatory 22 because Plaintiff states that no information responsive to that interrogatory has been withheld on the basis of the stated objections. See id.