The plaintiffs seek an order compelling the defendants to answer interrogatories served on December 8, 2020, specifically numbers 7, 8 and 9. They argue that no response or objection to the interrogatories was received within 30 days as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2), (4), and, even if it had been, the defendants’ late objection based on attorney-client privilege and work product privilege is meritless. The defendants admit that their objections to the subject interrogatories came 83 days after they were served but argue that the attorney-client and work product privileges should nonetheless attach because “the absence of timely privilege objections...does not waive the protections...[r]ather, disclosure waives the privilege.” This position is contrary to both the Federal Rules, the local rules, and the relevant case law. See, e.g., L. R. 33.1(c)(1) (“Any ground not stated in an objection within the time provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or any extensions thereof, shall be deemed waived.”) (emphasis added); Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) (“Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived”) (emphasis added); Marx v. Kelly, Hart & Hallman, P.C., 929 F.2d 8, 12 (1st Cir. 1991) (explicitly rejecting party's assertion that objections based on attorney-client privilege escaped the scope of Rule 33(b)’s 30-day deadline).

Accordingly, since the objections were provided more than 30 days after service, they are subject to being deemed waived on that basis alone. However, judicial discretion is still at play in cases of waiver, and a court can decline to deem late objections waived when “[the discovery] request far exceeds the bounds of fair discovery.” Krewson v. City of Quincy, 120 F.R.D. 6, 7 (D. Mass. 1988). Here, the plaintiff has provided case law from this Circuit and other Circuits for the proposition that discovery into the search terms and ESI protocols followed by a party does not exceed the bounds of fair discovery. See, e.g., Matter of Feldberg, 862 F.2d 622, 627 (7th Cir. 1988) (“[Q]uestions about the adequacy of [a document] search do not entail legal advice, [so] the topic is not off limits just because an attorney plays a role.”); United States v. Cadden, No. 14-10363, 2015 WL 5737144, *2-3 (D. Mass. Sept. 30, 2015) (ESI search terms not work product).

The defendants moreover did not raise any claim of undue burden or expense in their response to the motion, so the court finds that the objections based on attorney-client privilege and work product privilege are waived and that the interrogatories do not far exceed the bounds of fair discovery. The plaintiffs’ motion is accordingly ALLOWED and the defendants shall provide answers within ten days.