*1 THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Amended Motion to Compel [159] filed by Southpoint Bank. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Motion [159] should be granted in part and denied in part as outlined below.

On September 3, 2021, SouthPoint Bank (“SouthPoint”) propounded requests for admission, interrogatories, and requests for production to Origin Bank (“Origin”). See [189] [190] [191]. The parties agree that during a telephone conference between counsel, counsel for SouthPoint agreed to extend the response deadline to October 8, 2021. See [159-1] at 2; [179] at 3. On October 8, 2021, Origin served its Responses to SouthPoint's Requests for Admissions, but did not serve responses to the other written discovery requests. See Notice of Service [107]. Almost a month later, on November 2, 2021, Origin served its interrogatory responses. See Notice of Service [120]. On November 18, 2021, Origin served its Responses to SouthPoint's Requests for Production. Origin did not seek leave of Court to serve the late responses nor had SouthPoint agreed to further extensions of time.

On December 23, 2021, SouthPoint filed the instant Amended Motion to Compel [159],[1] arguing that Origin's responses to their written discovery requests were inadequate, improperly utilized general objections, and were untimely. Origin filed its Response [146], and SouthPoint replied. See [203]. This matter is now ripe for review.

The “Reservation of Rights” and General Objections

Origin opens its response to SouthPoint's Requests for Admissions with a “Reservation of Rights”, the purpose of which is unclear. See [159-4] at 2. In this section, Origin attempts, inter alia, to “reserve” rights to object further to the discovery or to object to other discovery (No. 1), “reserves” the right to present other evidence at trial (No. 6), and “assumes no obligation to make available and/or produce” certain records. Id. The reservations serve no real purpose and in most cases are inapplicable or unnecessary and will be disregarded.

Next Origin raises certain “General Objections.” See [159-4] at 3-5. These, too, appear unnecessary. For example, Origin raised nine (9) such objections (with No. 1 having about 20 subparts) in response to the requests for admissions, most of which are never mentioned in the responses. Objection No. 7, that the discovery request might call for a “legal conclusion” is referenced in response to a number of the requests for admissions, and General Objections 3, 5 and 6 are each mentioned once. The rest of the General Objections are not mentioned in any of the responses to the requests for admissions and will be overruled as either inapplicable or abandoned.

*2 Origin's inclusion of blanket, and often inapplicable objections has been a consistent theme during the discovery process. While conduct of this type is often more distracting than prejudicial, in this case it has led to unnecessary discovery delay and confusion. Even when discovery is eventually answered in part, Origin often delivers it with another set of objections and qualifiers that leaves the recipient (and the Court) unclear as to what was produced and what was withheld.

This conduct is dilatory at best and obstructive at worst. If it continues, sanctions may be imposed. Specific objections should be made in timely discovery responses and motions pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court will disregard the qualifiers and objections raised during production in emails, letters, and the like.

Requests for Admissions

SouthPoint challenges Origin's responses to thirteen separate Requests for Admissions (Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21). As noted above, Origin's responses to the requests for admissions propounded by SouthPoint included an entire page labeled “Reservation of Rights” and three pages of “General Objections.” See [159-4] at 2, 3-6. SouthPoint argues that Origin has improperly utilized these general objections in its responses. SouthPoint also argues that Origin improperly claims that some of the requests for admissions are seeking a legal conclusion, instead of seeking facts or the application of law to fact as contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1)(A).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 “allows litigants to request admissions as to a broad range of matters including ultimate facts, as well as applications of law to fact.” In re Carney, 258 F.3d 415, 419 (5th Cir. 2001). “Requests for purely legal conclusions...are generally not permitted.” See Thompson v. Beasley, 309 F.R.D. 236, 241 (N.D. Miss. 2015) (quoting Vons Companies v. United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 1, 15 (2001), modified on other grounds, No. 00-234T, 2001 U.S. Claims LEXIS 241, 2001 WL 1555306, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 30, 2001)).

The Motion to Compel [159] is granted as to Requests for Admissions 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20, and 21. These requests do not call for pure legal conclusions, they address facts or application of law to facts. Additionally, the objection that certain documents “speak for themselves” is rejected. Documents do speak for themselves, but these requests serve the salient purpose of determining whether there is disagreement over what they mean. See Superior Sales West, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 335 F.R.D. 98, 105 (W.D. Tex. May 27, 2020) (“The purpose of requests for admission is to eliminate from the trial matters as to which there is no genuine dispute.”) (quoting Safeco of America v. Rawstron, 181 F.R.D. 441, 445 (C.D. Cal. May 18, 1998)).

Likewise, that the requesting party might have access to certain records is of no moment and that the requesting party might already know the answer to the question via access to records is not a valid objection. Requests for admissions serve to determine whether the receiving party also agrees with a statement or position or whether the requesting party should be prepared to prove the statement if disputed. See Longoria v. Cty. Of Dallas, Texas, No. 3:14-CV-3111-L, 2016 WL 6893625, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 22, 2016) (“Rule 36 requests are properly directed to matters that the requesting party would otherwise need to prove.”); see also Am. Auto. Ass'n (Inc.) v. AAA Legal Clinic of Jefferson Crooke, P.C., 930 F.2d 1117, 1120 (5th Cir. 1991). These requests for admission must be admitted or denied as appropriate. The objections to these requests are overruled.

*3 The Motion is denied as to Request No. 18. The request calls for Origin to admit that the borrower did not pay the property taxes for certain years. The Court agrees that the request could be susceptible to multiple interpretations as taxes may have not been paid when due and yet paid later. The request should be more specific as to time.

Interrogatories

SouthPoint argues that because Origin did not respond to their other written discovery requests by the date agreed, that Origin has waived its objections. Origin argues that the “volume of documents” that it needed to review in order to respond to the discovery requests demonstrates good cause for the Court to find that Origin did not waive its objections. See [179] at 15. Origin also argues that it “reasonably-justified anticipation of submission of an amended protective order and objection to future responses pending the same[.]” Id.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) states that “The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.” Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b) states that objections not served within 30 days after service of the interrogatories shall be deemed waived, the Rule gives the district court discretion to excuse the untimeliness for good cause.” Solorzano v. Shell Chem Co., 254 F.3d 1082 (5th Cir. 2001).

By agreement, Origin's responses to SouthPoint's Interrogatories were due by October 8, 2021. See [159-1] at 2; [179] at 3. Origin did not serve its responses until almost an entire month later, on November 2, 2021. See Notice of Service [120]. Origin's reasons for not timely responding are unconvincing. Parties are not free to pick and choose which deadlines they will follow, nor are they free to conduct discovery on a schedule of their choosing. A party needing additional time should request it by motion and obtain an appropriate order.

While Rule 33 permits the Court to strike Origin's untimely objections, the Court declines to do so here. Instead, the specific objections raised in Origin's response to this Motion are addressed as set forth herein. However, the Court finds that any objections Origin did not raise in their Response [179] are deemed waived or abandoned.

The Court also declines to find that there is a waiver of the attorney-client privilege or work-product protections. While the Court would again be justified in making this determination, in the interests of justice and consistency and for other good cause, the Court declines to do so here. SouthPoint's written discovery requests overlapped requests made by other parties in this matter which were also in dispute and the subject of other motions to compel. The Court directed Origin to serve a privilege log in a prior order and will do so here. See Order [223]. Origin shall serve a privilege log as required by L.U.Civ. R. 26(e) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) for all responsive documents withheld by Origin (and requested by SouthPoint) on the basis of the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine by not later than February 10, 2022.

The Motion [159] is granted as to Interrogatory No. 4. The request called for Origin to identify and describe all amendments or modifications to the loan documents. Origin did not object to the request, but stated: “The Loan Documents speak for themselves.” This is not an appropriate answer or response. Origin argues that under Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure it has the option to produce business records from which the requesting party may determine the answer just as easily as it could. That is true in part. The Rule also calls for the responding party to specify the records involved in sufficient detail. Origin did not so. Origin shall answer the interrogatory or, if it intends to answer with business records, it must specifically identify the records involved.

*4 The Motion is granted as to Interrogatory No. 5. In its Memorandum in Response to the Motion to Compel [179], Origin addresses only Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) and suggests that it complied with the rule. It did not. Origin shall answer the interrogatory or, if it intends to answer with business records, it shall specifically identify the records involved.

The motion is denied as to Interrogatory No. 6. The Court agrees with Origin that the interrogatory is far too broad and burdensome to answer. The interrogatory calls for the identification of, and information about, every communication relating to the loan at issue. The loan was made in 2014 and there have been innumerable communications not just with respect to the loan, but other litigation relating to the loan. Such a request is not proportional to the needs of the case. The interrogatory need not be answered as worded. SouthPoint is permitted, however, to inquire about specific issues and communications concerning the loan in depositions or other discovery and to obtain loan-related documents via document requests.

The Motion is denied as to Interrogatory No. 7 for the same reasons applying to Interrogatory No. 6. Communications with the guarantors are discoverable, but information about every communication is excessive and not proportional to the needs of the case. SouthPoint may obtain the written communications via document requests and may address this area in depositions.

Requests for Production

In the Amended Motion to Compel [159], SouthPoint maintains that Origin did not respond to its requests for production as of the date of filing. See [160] at 2. In its Rebuttal [203], SouthPoint admits that it overlooked an email from counsel for Origin and withdrew its request as it relates to the Requests for Production of Documents. See [203] at 1-2. The Court will not address this withdrawn portion of the Motion.

Sanctions

Both parties requested for the Court to award the costs and fees associated with the Motion. See [160] at 17; [179] at 16. As both parties have prevailed to some degree, the Court declines to award sanctions at this time.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:

SO ORDERED this the 27th day of January, 2022.