*1 This cause comes before the Court on Orange Lake Country Club, Inc.’s (hereinafter “OLCC”), Motion to Compel Against Counterclaim-Defendant DC Capital Law Firm, LLP (hereinafter “Motion”) (Doc. 56), filed June 11, 2019. Therein, OLCC seeks a Court order compelling DC Capital Law Firm, LLP (hereinafter “DC Capital”) to provide better responses to OLCC's discovery requests and an award of legal expenses associated with preparing the motion. (Doc. 56 at 26.) DC Capital responded in opposition (Doc. 73), prompting the Court to schedule a hearing on the Motion (Doc. 107). Oral argument was heard on September 18, 2019. (Doc. 114.) For the reasons stated on the record, the Motion was granted in part and denied in part, but the Court deferred ruling on an award of attorney's fees and costs. For the reasons stated below, OLCC's request for an award of attorney's fees and costs is granted.

Norene and Lawrence McGhiey instituted this action against OLCC alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. and the related Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 559.55 et seq. (Doc. 1.) On February 19, 2019, OLCC filed a counterclaim against the McGhieys and joined DC Capital as a counterclaim defendant. (Doc. 17.) Therein, OLCC alleges that DC Capital tortiously interfered with a legally enforceable contract between OLCC and the McGhieys. (Doc. 17 at 21.) OLCC served its first set of discovery requests on DC Capital on March 29, 2019. (Doc. 56 at 2.) After receiving an extension of time from OLCC, DC Capital served its responses and objections to the discovery requests on May 3, 2019. (Id.) The parties met and conferred regarding DC Capital's responses on May 9, 2019, and six days later, OLCC sent a proposed confidentiality agreement to DC Capital to address some of its objections based on the dissemination of confidential and/or proprietary information to be disclosed in responding to the requests. (Id.; Doc. 56-8.) On May 29, 2019, DC Capital served OLCC with amended responses and objections. (Doc. 56 at 2.) Unsatisfied with their amended responses and objections, OLCC filed this instant Motion. (Doc. 56.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 provides for the use of interrogatories to inquire about any matter, while Rule 34 authorizes parties to request the production of documents and other things. Both interrogatories and requests for production are limited by Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2), 34(a). Objections to interrogatories must be both timely and specific or the objection is waived. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). If a party objects to a request for production, the objection “must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C). The seeking party may file a motion to compel discovery when the party to whom the request is directed to fails to answer an interrogatory or produce documents.[1] Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B).

*2 According to Rule 37(a)(5)(A), if a motion to compel is granted, then the court must grant an award of attorney's fees and costs to the moving party. However, Courts cannot order such an award if (1) the movant did not make a good faith attempt to obtain the discovery without court action, (2) the non-moving party's disclosure was substantially justified, or (3) such an award would be unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i)–(iii). A “good faith attempt” requires the movant to actively try to resolve the discovery dispute prior to filing the motion. Compare Knights Armament Co. v. Optical Sys. Tech., Inc., 254 F.R.D. 470, 472–73 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (upholding an award of attorney's fees since the movant engaged in a good faith attempt to resolve the discovery dispute through multiple letters and emails prior to filing the motion to compel) with Commerce First Fin., LLC v. Summerlin Bass, LLC, No. 2:10-CV-290-CEH-DNF, 2011 WL 13141496, at *2–3 (M.D. Fla. June 16, 2011) (refusing to grant an award of attorney's fees since the movant engaged in minimal interactions with the non-moving party prior to filing the motion to compel). A party complying with Local Rule 3.01(g) satisfies the Rule 37(a)(5)(A) good faith conferral requirement. See Knights Armament Co.,254 F.R.D. at 472 (“The good faith conferral requirement in the Local Rules is stricter than Rule 37’s good faith conferral requirement.”)

None of the conditions prohibiting the court from awarding reasonable legal expenses are applicable to the instant case. Based on the representations by the parties, OLCC did make a good faith attempt to obtain the discovery without court action. Just six days after DC Capital served its original responses and objections to the discovery requests, the parties met and conferred to resolve the discovery disputes. (Doc. 56 at 2.) Then, approximately one week later, OLCC created and shared a draft confidentiality agreement to address DC Capital's concern about disclosing confidential and/or proprietary information.[2] (Doc. 56-7.) Moreover, OLCC attempted to resolve this matter with DC Capital prior to filing the Motion. (Doc. 56.)

Upon review of DC Capital's responses, the Court finds that most of DC Capital's objections were not substantially justified. Each of DC Capital's objections to the discovery requests contains one or a combination of the following objections—the request is (1) irrelevant, (2) overbroad, (3) not proportional to the needs of the case, or (4) pertaining to privileged, proprietary or confidential information. (See Doc. 56.) While the objections did contain caselaw, the cases do not indicate how the discovery requests are irrelevant, overbroad, or disproportionate. Instead the cases stated either the elements of tortious interference or paraphrased a general discovery concept. (See Doc. 56.) These are the “boilerplate objections” that the 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure made clear were improper. Archer v. City of Winter Haven, No. 8:16-CV-3067-T-36AAS, 2017 WL 5158142, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2017).

For example, instead of explaining how the discovery requests are irrelevant, DC Capital simply lists the elements of tortious interference and states that the discovery request will not prove any of the elements of tortious interference. However, a discovery request need not be directly related to an element of a claim. See Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Se. Floating Docks, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 426, 430 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2005) (The term “relevant” should be “ ‘construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that bears on, any issue that is or may be in the case.’ ” (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978))).

Additionally, for its objections based on either privilege or confidentiality, DC Capital failed to explain how the information or documentation would be privileged or should remain confidential. For example, several of DC Capital's objections based on privilege involved interactions between its client (the McGhieys), DC Capital, and an additional third party. (Doc. 56.) It is not clear how these documents are privileged. Moreover, DC Capital's objections to the requests for production failed to indicate whether it was withholding any responsive documentation. To the extent that documents are being withheld based on privilege, DC Capital failed to provide a privilege log to OLCC, even by the time of oral argument.

*3 Without citing any case law, DC Capital asserts that documents and information relating to its corporate structure and governance are confidential and/or contain proprietary information. (Doc. 56.) To the extent that documents are being withheld because DC Capital considers them to be confidential or proprietary, that is the very reason confidentiality agreements exist. If DC Capital had followed the Middle District Discovery (2015) handbook's guidance for interpreting discovery requests, many of these objections could have been avoided. DC Capital's concern that OLCC has an ulterior goal to litigate DC Capital out of business does not excuse DC Capital from following basic discovery procedures.

Finally, the Court does not believe an award of fees would be unjust. DC Capital, the party against whom OLCC filed the instant Motion, is a law firm. As such, it should be fully aware of its obligations during the discovery process.

For the reasons stated herein and on the record, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on September 25, 2019.