*1 Plaintiff moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and Local Rule 26.1 to compel better responses from Defendant and/or overrule Defendant's objections to several of Plaintiff's interrogatories and requests for production. ECF No. 36. Defendant filed a response. ECF No. 39. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED.

This case arises out of a pedestrian versus automobile incident that occurred at Defendant's travel center on September 9, 2017, during the State of Emergency that had been declared due to Hurricane Irma. See ECF No. 1-1 at ECF Page Numbers 4–8. Plaintiff alleges she suffered injuries when she was pinned between two vehicles in the entrance way leading to the fuel station on Defendant's property. Id. Plaintiff filed a one count complaint alleging negligence on Defendant's part for failure to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition. Id.

As a preliminary matter, Defendant's objections are not well taken. “The law in the Eleventh Circuit makes clear that boilerplate discovery objections are tantamount to no objection being raised at all and may constitute a waiver of the discovery being sought.” Rivera v. 2K Clevelander, LLC, No. 16-21437-Civ, 2017 WL 5496158, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2017). Many of Defendant's objections are boilerplate objections. See, e.g., Defendant's Response to Interrogatory #16, ECF No. 36-4 (“Objection. The interrogatory is vague and ambiguous.”). This Court may overrule such objections on this basis alone. See FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b)(4) and 34(b)(2)(B); N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 26.1(C) (“Boilerplate objections are strongly disfavored.”); see also FDIC v. Brudnicki, 291 F.R.D. 669, 674 n.4 (N.D. Fla. 2013) (“[T]he form boilerplate objections shall not be considered by the Court and are nullity.”); Walton Constr. Co., LLC v. Corus Bank, No. 4:10cv137, 2012 WL 13029592, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 18, 2012) (rejecting boilerplate objections as “meaningless”). That Defendant subsequently attempted to provide specific objections in its response to Plaintiff's motion to compel is unavailing. See Lorenzano v. Sys., Inc., No. 6:17-cv-422, 2018 WL 3827635, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2018) (“[T]he Court will not rely on Systems' post hoc justifications for its boilerplate objections. To the extent that Systems tried to raise specific objections in its Response, the Court finds that Systems waived these objections.”).

Moreover, Defendant repeatedly relies on the pre-2015 amendment formulation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 in objecting on the basis that Plaintiff's requests are not “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” See, e.g., ECF No. 39 at ¶¶ 21, 29, 46. Such objections are meaningless and without merit.[1] In addition, many of Defendant's specific objections—raised improperly in its response to Plaintiff's motion—based on vagueness or ambiguity border on frivolity. See, e.g., ECF No. 39 at ¶¶ 33, 36 (explaining that Defendant is unable to respond to Plaintiff's requests for documents pertaining to policies governing the supervision of “individuals” on Defendant's property because Defendant is unable to discern the whether the term “individuals” refers to “persons or vehicles”).

*2 Importantly, Defendant's practice of providing discovery responses “subject to” or “without waiving” its objections is improper. E.g., Defendant's Response to Interrogatory #2, ECF No. 36-4; see Sharbaugh, 2017 WL 5988221, at *2. Such a response preserves nothing. Further, it leaves Plaintiff uncertain as to whether the discovery request (as propounded) has actually been fully answered, whether the response related only to the request as unilaterally narrowed by Defendant, and whether Defendant is withholding any responsive materials. The proper practice is to state (1) whether documents are being provided in response to the request and identify those documents by sequential number or category, and (2) whether any responsive documents are being withheld, and if so the specific legal basis for that objection. See FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(C) (objection must “state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection.”).

With these principles in mind, the Court now turns to Defendant's objections. The Court will not consider the improper post hoc specific objections raised in Defendant's response. See Lorenzano, 2018 WL 3827635, at *3.

•Interrogatory #2: Defendant's objection is overruled. Plaintiff's request is well within the scope of discovery as defined by Rule 33(a)(2) and 26(b). Defendant's answer notwithstanding its objection is improper. Defendant's answer stands, and Defendant is compelled to amend its answer to the extent it withheld a portion of its response based on its objection.

•Interrogatory #3: Defendant's objection is overruled. While the interrogatory requests information underlying Defendant's affirmative defenses, it does not concern issues of pure law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 33(a)(2) (“An interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact ....”); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b) advisory committee's note to 1970 amendment (requests that call for the application of law to fact “can be most useful in narrowing and sharpening the issues, which is a major purpose of discovery”); accord Zamperla, Inc. v. I.E. Park SRL, No. 6:13-cv-1807, 2015 WL 12836001, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 22, 2015). “It is proper to ask for the legal contentions of a party as applied to the facts of this case, and that is what this interrogatory does.” See Fla. Dep't of Fin. Servs. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., No. 4:11cv242, 2012 WL 13026761, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 6, 2012). Moreover, Defendant's answer notwithstanding its objection is improper. Defendant's answer stands, and Defendant is compelled to amend its answer to the extent it withheld a portion of its response based on its objection.

•Interrogatory #5: Defendant's objection is overruled. While the interrogatory requests information underlying Defendant's affirmative defenses, it does not concern issues of pure law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 33(a)(2) (“An interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact ....”); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b) advisory committee's note to 1970 amendment (requests that call for the application of law to fact “can be most useful in narrowing and sharpening the issues, which is a major purpose of discovery”); accord Zamperla, Inc. v. I.E. Park SRL, No. 6:13-cv-1807, 2015 WL 12836001, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 22, 2015). “It is proper to ask for the legal contentions of a party as applied to the facts of this case, and that is what this interrogatory does.” See Fla. Dep't of Fin. Servs. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., No. 4:11cv242, 2012 WL 13026761, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 6, 2012). Moreover, Defendant's answer notwithstanding its objection is improper. Defendant's answer stands, and Defendant is compelled to amend its answer to the extent it withheld a portion of its response based on its objection.

*3 •Interrogatory #16: Defendant's objection is overruled. Defendant's objection that “[t]he interrogatory is vague and ambiguous” is a meaningless boilerplate objection that is without merit.

•Interrogatory #18: Defendant's objection is overruled. Defendant's objection that “[t]he interrogatory seeks irrelevant information” is a general, non-specific boilerplate objection. See GMHC Holding Co., Inc. v. Sickle, No. 3:14cv614, 2016 WL 7757522, at *7 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 23, 2016). Regardless, Plaintiff's interrogatory is well within the scope of discovery as defined by Rule 33(a)(2) and 26(b).

•Interrogatory #21: Defendant's objection is overruled. Defendant's objection that “[t]he interrogatory is overbroad, not properly limited in time or scope, and vague and ambiguous” is boilerplate and inappropriate. See GMHC Holding Co., Inc., 2016 WL 7757522, at *7. Moreover, Plaintiff's interrogatory is sufficiently narrow. Its scope is limited to incidents where (1) someone sustained physical injuries, (2) the injury occurred while they were waiting in line for gas in a parking lot or near a gas pump, and (3) is limited in time to the five years preceding the subject incident.

•Interrogatory #22: Defendant's objection is overruled. Defendant's objection that “[t]he interrogatory is vague and ambiguous and seek [sic] information that [sic] irrelevant to the current matter” is boilerplate and inappropriate. See GMHC Holding Co., Inc., 2016 WL 7757522, at *7. Plaintiff's interrogatory seeks relevant information (e.g., potential witnesses or evidence of Defendant's negligence in supervising the premises). Moreover, Defendant does not identify which part of the interrogatory it believes is vague or ambiguous.

•Interrogatory #23: Defendant has indicated that it withdraws its objection to this interrogatory. Accordingly, Defendant's objection is denied as moot.

•Interrogatory #24: Defendant's objection is overruled. Defendant's objection that “[t]he interrogatory is vague and ambiguous, argumentative and seeks irrelevant information” is improper boilerplate. See GMHC Holding Co., Inc., 2016 WL 7757522, at *7. Plaintiff seeks relevant evidence (e.g., information concerning the condition of the parking lot or gas pumps on the day of the event). Moreover, Defendant does not specify which part of the request it believes is vague, ambiguous, or argumentative. In addition, the interrogatory does not call for a legal conclusion. See FED. R. CIV. P. 33(a)(2) (“An interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact ....”).

•RFP #7: Defendant's objection is overruled. Defendant's objection that “[t]he request is vague and ambiguous” is a meaningless boilerplate objection that is without merit.[2]

•RFP #8: Defendant's objection is overruled. Defendant's objection that “[t]he request is vague and ambiguous” is a meaningless boilerplate objection that is without merit.

•RFP #9: Defendant's objection is overruled. Defendant's objection that “[t]he request is vague and ambiguous” is a meaningless boilerplate objection that is without merit.

•RFP #10: Defendant has indicated that it withdraws its objection to this request for production. Accordingly, Defendant's objection is denied as moot.

*4 •RFP #11: Defendant's objection is overruled. Defendant's objection that “[t]he request is vague and ambiguous” is a meaningless boilerplate objection that is without merit.

•RFP #14: Defendant has indicated that it withdraws its objection to this request for production. Accordingly, Defendant's objection is denied as moot.

•RFP #16: Defendant's objection is overruled. Plaintiff's request is sufficiently narrow. Its scope is limited to incidents where (1) someone sustained physical injuries, (2) the injury occurred while they were waiting in line for gas in a parking lot or near a gas pump, and (3) is limited in time to the five years preceding the subject incident.

•RFP #18: Defendant's objection is overruled. Defendant's objection that “[t]he interrogatory [sic] is vague and ambiguous, argumentative and seeks irrelevant information” is a meaningless boilerplate objection that is without merit.[3] Regardless, Plaintiff's request is well within the scope of discovery as defined by Rule 26(b). Moreover, Defendant fails to specify which portion of the request it believes is vague, ambiguous, or argumentative.

•RFP #21: Defendant's objection is overruled. Defendant's objection that “[t]his request is overbroad, not properly limited in or [sic] scope, and seeks irrelevant information” is improper boilerplate that is without merit. Regardless, Plaintiff's request is well within the scope of discovery as defined by Rule 26(b).

•RFP #23: Defendant's objection is overruled. Defendant's objection that “[t]his request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous” is improper boilerplate that is without merit. Moreover, Plaintiff's request specifically identifies the types of materials she seeks: those used to train employees on the proper supervision of individuals on the property.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A), when a motion to compel is granted, the Court “must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party ... whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant's expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees. FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(5)(A) (emphasis added). However, the Court “must not order this payment if: (i) the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action; (ii) the opposing party's nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified; or (iii) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Unless one of these conditions is met, an award of expenses is “mandatory.” Se. Asset Recovery Fund GA-4, LLC v. Windolf, 5:13cv222, 2016 WL 7655801, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 21, 2016) (citing Devaney v. Cont'l Am. Ins. Co., 989 F.2d 1154 (11th Cir. 1993)). “A position is ‘substantially justified’ if it results from a ‘genuine dispute, or if reasonable people could differ as to the appropriateness of the contested action.’ ” Id. (quoting Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988)).

*5 Under the circumstances of this case, an award is “mandatory,” and this Court would make an award as a matter of discretion even if an award was not mandatory. First, in accordance with Local Rule 7.1(B), Plaintiff filed its motion after attempting in good faith to obtain the discovery without court action. ECF No. 36 at 15–16. Second, as outlined above, the Court finds each of Defendant's objections to be meritless and not “substantially justified.” Finally, this Court can find no reason why an award of expenses in this case would be “unjust.”

Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to its reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses for bringing her motion to compel. This Court will determine the amount at the conclusion of the case to save time and resources.

This Court reminds both parties that this is not how civil litigation works. Discovery is not a game of “blind man's bluff” or “hide the ball.” Bush v. Gulf Coast Elec. Coop., No. 5:13-cv-369, 2015 WL 3422336, at *5 (N.D. Fla. May 27, 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, the purpose of discovery under the Federal Rules is to make relevant information available to litigants, so that disputes may be resolved with as full and accurate an understanding of the true facts as possible, and therefore embody a fair and just result. See DeepGulf, Inc. v. Moszkowski, 330 F.R.D. 600, 605 (N.D. Fla. 2019); State Nat'l Ins. Co. v. City of Destin, No. 3:15cv31, 2015 WL 11109379, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 1, 2015). Properly conducted, discovery narrows and clarifies issues in dispute, reduces the risk of surprise, gives parties a better sense of their chances of success and their options for settlement, and prevents miscarriages of justice in cases where evidence would otherwise be available to only one party. See DeepGulf, 330 F.R.D. at 605. Both parties are put on notice that continuing discovery abuses will result in sanctions. See generally Liguria Foods, Inc. v. Griffith Labs., Inc., 320 F.R.D. 168, 169–192 (N.D. Iowa 2017).

For these reasons, it is ORDERED:

SO ORDERED on September 26, 2019.

“At least one court has imposed sanctions upon an attorney, in part due to the attorney's reliance on ‘caselaw that analyzed the version of Rule 26 that existed before the highly publicized amendments took effect on December 1, 2015.’ ” Sharbaugh v. Beaudry, No. 3:16cv126, 2017 WL 5988221, at *2 n.3 (N.D. Fla. May 5, 2017) (quoting Fulton v. Livingston Fin. LLC, 2016 WL 3976558 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2016)).

Contrary to Defendant's repeated assertion that it “is not required to notify Plaintiff that it has responsive documents” until “the Court Rules [sic] on the merits of the raised objections,” ECF No. 39 at ¶¶ 31, 34, 36, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically instruct that “[a]n objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection.” FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(C).

Indeed, it appears Defendant merely copied and pasted verbatim its boilerplate objection to interrogatory #24.