*1 Defendant Legend Senior Living, LLC filed a Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 62) to which Plaintiff's originally failed to respond. The Court granted the motion as unopposed, drawing a swift response from Plaintiffs, who indicated they were unaware in light of ongoing conversations with Defendant of their obligation to respond to the motion. The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to file an untimely response to the Motion to Compel, vacating the Court's prior order granting the motion as confessed. Upon consideration of Plaintiffs' response to the motion to compel and Defendant's reply, the Court finds as follows.

Defendant's first argument is that Plaintiffs' initial responses to its discovery, both interrogatories and requests for production, were untimely and incomplete. As a result, Defendant contends Plaintiffs have waived any objection to the requests. Plaintiffs, who did not seek any extension of time in which to respond to the discovery requests, note that due to the number of Plaintiffs and the number of discovery requests,

(Doc. No. 76, pp. 1-2).[1] The Court does not disagree that perhaps the task to be completed was herculean in light of the number of Plaintiffs before the Court. However, the proper approach to such a task is not to unilaterally determine that timely responses are not required. This tactic is especially dangerous in light of the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(2), which provides that responses and/or objections are due within 30 days of service of interrogatories, and that “[a]ny ground not stated in a timely objection is waived, unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.” Furthermore, although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 does not include an express waiver provision with regard to untimely objections to requests for production, some courts have determined that such a waiver is implied. See, e.g., Lucero v. Martinez, 03cv1128 JB/DJS, at 4 (D.N.M. March 11, 2006); Pulsecard, Inc. v. Discover Card Services, Inc., 168 F.R.D. 295, 304 (D.Kan. 1996); Marx v. Kelly, Hart & Hallman, P.C., 929 F.2d 8, 12 (1st Cir. 1991); Krewson v. City of Quincy, 120 F.R.D. 6 (D. Mass. 1988).

The Court concludes herein, that Plaintiffs' failure to timely object to the interrogatories and requests for production results in waiver of any objection they may seek to raise. Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiffs' response to any discovery request posed by Defendant on June 16, 2017 was an objection levied after July 17, 2017, the objection has been waived.

*2 As such, the remaining issues as set forth in Defendant's Reply brief (Doc. No. 77) are easily addressed. Plaintiffs shall provide to Defendant within ten days their responses to Defendant's request for production of their social media, with the limitations identified by Defendant as to time and subject matter. Supplemental responses to Interrogatories shall be provided to Defendant within fifteen days of entry of this Order. Production in response to Defendant's Request for Production with regard to other categories shall be completed within the same fifteen-day timeframe.

Defendant's Motion to Compel is GRANTED as set forth herein. Additionally, and consistent with Defendant's request in its motion, the deadline for responding to Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification is hereby extended to December 15, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of October 2017.