*1 Plaintiffs served Requests for Admission (RFA) on Defendants Charles Keiser, John Ordman, Cyrus Freidheim, Bob Kistinger, William Tsacalis, and Robert Olson (“the Individual Defendants”). These Defendants have answered the RFAs in part and objected in part. ECF No. 3297-2. Plaintiffs now move to overrule the objections and to compel responses to the RFAs. ECF No. 3298.

I previously resolved similar objections made by Defendant Chiquita Brands International, Inc. ECF No. 3339 (“Chiquita RFA Order”). For the reasons stated in that Order, Plaintiffs’ Instructions to the Individual Defendants are stricken, so any objections to those Instructions are denied as moot.

Rule 36 establishes the rules for issuing and responding to Requests for Admission. For any matter discoverable under Rule 26(b)(1), a party can serve a written request that the opposing party admit the truth of a fact, the truth of the application of law to a fact, or the genuineness of an identified document. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1). The responding party can answer the request or object to it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3), (a)(5). The answer can either (1) admit the matter, (2) deny the matter, or (3) state in detail why the matter cannot be admitted or denied. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). “The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.” Id.

The party serving the Request can challenge an answer or objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6). “Unless the court finds an objection justified, it must order that an answer be served.” Id.

Before objecting or answering, the respondent must conduct a reasonable inquiry. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1), 36(a)(4). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not “require a comprehensive search ... Nor [do they] require a perfect or even optimal search.” In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liab. Litig., 20-MD-2924, 2021 WL 5299847, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 15, 2021) (J. Reinhart). What constitutes a “reasonable inquiry” under the facts of different cases can vary greatly. For Rule 36(a)(4), a responding party starts with its existing knowledge (“the information it knows”). It then has a duty to educate itself further with “readily obtain[able]” information.

The responding party initially determines what constitutes a reasonable inquiry. By signing its discovery response, the respondent certifies that it made a reasonable inquiry. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1). If the requesting party believes that the certification is not accurate (i.e., no reasonable inquiry occurred), it can move for sanctions, which can include requiring the respondent to conduct a more extensive search. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(3) (“appropriate sanction” available for improper certification); Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6) (remedies for non-compliant response to RFA).

*2 The RFAs included five defined terms: “Authentic,” “Defendant,” “You/your,” “Chiquita,” “Record of Regularly Conducted Activity.” “Chiquita” is defined as “Chiquita Brands International, Inc.” The terms “you” and “your” are defined to mean the Individual Defendant and “any other person or entity acting on behalf of Defendant, including, but not limited to, attorneys, counsel, employees, agents, investigators, clerks, experts, representatives, and consultants.” The RFAs further define “agent or employee” as having “the meaning ascribed to it in Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D).”

All of the Individual Defendants except Mr. Kistinger were served with the following four RFAs:

ECF Nos. ECF No. 3298-2 at 4 (Freidheim); 3298-3 at 7-8 (Keiser); 3298-5 at 5-7 (Olson); 3298-6 (Ordman); 3298-7 at 4-6 (Tsacalis).

Mr. Kistinger was served with the following five RFAs:

ECF No. 3298-4 at 6-8. Exhibit A is a list of more than 230 Bates Stamp numbers. ECF No. 3297-1 at 6-10.[1] It contains two responsive columns. One says, “Admit that the document was produced by you in response to Plaintiffs’ requests for the production of document in this litigation.” The second says, “Admit that the document is authentic. If denied, provide explanation.”

Exhibit B is a subset of Exhibit A's Bates Stamp numbers. Id. at 11-20. It has two responsive columns. One says, “Admit that the document is a Record of your Regularly Conducted Activity.” The second says, “Admit that the document was made by your agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed.”

Exhibit C is a subset of Exhibit A's Bates Stamp numbers. Id. at 21-23. It has one responsive column: “Admit that the document was prepared before January 1, 1998. If denied, provide explanation.”

In September 2018, Plaintiffs served 11 RFAs relating to 4927 separate documents. ECF No. 2129-1. Two of the RFAs asked Chiquita to admit that it had produced the documents in discovery and that the documents were authentic. The RFAs defined “authentic” in the same way as the currently-pending RFAs. The remaining RFAs related to establishing evidentiary foundations for the documents, including whether they were records of regularly conducted business activity. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). Plaintiffs did not ask Chiquita to admit that the documents were prepared before January 1, 1998. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(16). On Chiquita's Motion for Protective Order, the Court ruled that Chiquita had to respond only to the two RFAs asking if it produced certain documents to Plaintiffs and whether those documents were authentic. ECF No. 2180.

I first address several objections that are raised by multiple Individual Defendants. I then separately address the motion to compel as to each Individual Defendant.

A. Common Objections

Every Individual Defendant except Mr. Ordman objects to “authentic” being defined as “having the meaning ascribed to it in Federal Rule of Evidence 901” on the grounds that Rule 901 does not define “authentic.” ECF Nos. 3298-3 at 6 (Keiser), 3298-4 at 3-4 (Kistinger), 3298-5 at 3 (Olson), 3298-7 at 3 (Tsacalis), 3338-1 at 3 (Freidheim). This objection is overruled. The 2018 Protective Order compelled responses to RFAs using this same definition of “authentic.” See Chiquita RFA Order at 10 n.3. The Individual Defendants have not offered sufficient reason to depart from that prior ruling.

All Individual Defendants except Mr. Tsacalis object to the definitions of “Chiquita.” Several also object to the definition of “you” or “your.” Mr. Keiser says, “Notwithstanding the definitions provided in the Requests, Mr. Keiser objects to any use of “Chiquita” intended to group Mr. Keiser with Chiquita Brands International, Inc (“Chiquita”) or any other individual currently or formerly employed by or otherwise associated with Chiquita.” Mr. Kistinger objects to “Definition No. 3 (‘You’ and ‘your’), to the extent it purports to group Mr. Kistinger with, or bind Mr. Kistinger to, Chiquita, any individual currently or formerly employed by or associated with Chiquita, or any part or non-party to this litigation.” Mr. Olson, Mr. Ordman, and Mr. Freidheim object “to Definition No. 2 (‘Chiquita’), Definition No. 3 (‘You’ and ‘your’), and the use of these terms to the extent they purport to group [the respondent] with, or bind [the respondent] to, Chiquita, any individual currently or formerly employed by or associated with Chiquita, or any other party or non-party to this litigation.”

These are not proper objections. They do not point out a legal defect in the definitions. As discussed above, a responding party cannot unilaterally limit or modify the evidentiary and legal effects of a discovery response. If a specific response is based on the respondent interpreting or limiting a definition a particular way, the specific response should say so.

*4 More importantly, the terms “you” and “your” are not used in any of the RFAs to Mr. Olson, Mr. Ordman, or Mr. Freidheim. It appears these Individual Defendants did not carefully read the RFAs before asserting this objection.

Mr. Keiser, Mr. Freidheim, Mr. Kistinger, and Mr. Ordman object to the RFAs “to the extent they seek information not within [the Individual Defendant's] knowledge, possession, custody, or control.” ECF No. 3298-3 at 4 (Keiser); 3298-6 (Ordman); 3338-1 at 5 (Freidheim); 3298-4 at 6 (Kistinger). This objection is overruled.

First, it is ambiguous to say that a discovery request is objectionable “to the extent that” it asks for something improper. The objection needs to state unequivocally whether, in fact, the request asks for the objectionable thing. That way, the opposing party and the Court know whether an actual disputed issue exists.

Mr. Freidheim and Mr. Kistinger do not restate this argument as a specific objection to particular RFAs. They merely “incorporate[ ] all applicable objections above.” ECF Nos. 3298-4 at 6 (Kistinger); 3338-1 at 5 (Freidheim). That statement is equally ambiguous. The objection needs to unequivocally say which objections are being made to the particular discovery request. Accord S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(e)(2)(A) (“Where an objection is made to any interrogatory or subpart thereof or to any production request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, the objection shall state with specificity all grounds.”).[2]

Second, and even assuming it were clearly asserted, this objection lacks merit.[3] An RFA is allowed to ask the respondent to respond based on information not known at the time the RFA is served. Rule 36 contemplates a respondent will conduct a reasonable inquiry to supplement its current knowledge, and that the inquiry might encompass materials or information not presently in the respondent's possession, custody, or control.

All of the Individual Defendants except Mr. Tsacalis object to the RFAs “to the extent they seek or require the Individual Defendant to bind Chiquita or any other individual or entity. ECF No. 3298-3 at 4 (Mr. Keiser “objects to the Requests to the extent they seek or require Mr. Keiser to bind Chiquita or any other individual or entity.”); see also 3298-4 at 4 (“Mr. Kistinger provides these objections and responses solely on his own behalf and in those above-captioned cases to which he is a party, and not on behalf of any other defendant or in connection with any other case.”); 3298-5 at 3 (same for Mr. Olson); 3298-6 at 3 (same for Mr. Ordman); 3338-1 at 3 (same for Mr. Freidheim).

*5 This objection is overruled. First, as already explained, an objection “to the extent that” is not a proper objection. Second, the Individual Defendants are not making an objection. Their response does not say a reason why an RFA is legally improper. At best, it attempts to qualify the legal effect of answering the RFA. That attempt fails. Whether one person's words or actions bind another person and/or can be used in other cases is a legal conclusion that turns on doctrines such as rules of evidence, principles of agency, estoppel, co-conspirator liability, etc. A party's subjective intent not to bind another person may be relevant, but it does not control. In short, this attempted disclaimer has no legal effect.

Every Individual Defendant except Mr. Tsacalis objects that the documents listed in Exhibits A, B, and C to the RFAs are not separately stated, as required by Rule 36(a)(2), and that copies were not provided along with the RFAs. ECF No. 3298-5 at 4 (Olson); ECF No. 3338-1 at 4-5 (Freidheim); 3298-6 (Ordman); ECF No. 3298-4 at 5 (Kistinger); ECF No. 3298-3 at 3-4 (Keiser). This objection is overruled.

Rule 36(a)(2) requires, “Each matter [to be admitted] must be separately stated. A request to admit the genuineness of a document must be accompanied by a copy of the document, unless it is, or has been, otherwise furnished or made available for inspection and copying.” So, the rule requires two things. First, each fact that the requester wants admitted must be separately stated. Second, if the requester wants an admission about the authenticity of a document, the document must either have been provided in discovery or be attached to the request. The purposes of these two requirements are apparent: (1) it is confusing (and potentially ambiguous) if a person admits or denies multiple matters in the same response, and (2) a person cannot fairly be asked to admit or deny the genuineness of an undisclosed document.

The matters that Plaintiffs asked the Individual Defendants to admit were separately stated. The Exhibits to the RFAs are spreadsheets with each individual matter identified by Bates number, listed on a separate line, and with an accompanying space to insert a response. There is no ambiguity and no risk of confusion. Each answer clearly applies to a specified range of documents.

At best, it appears the Individual Defendants are objecting that the rows of the spreadsheets were not separately numbered. The remedy would be to require Plaintiffs to re-serve the RFAs with an additional column. First, Rule 36 does not require that RFAs be separately numbered; it requires that they be separately stated. As just explained, the RFAs comply with this requirement. Second, The Individual Defendants have not shown confusion or prejudice. Third, requiring Plaintiffs to re-serve the RFAs simply to add a numbering column would not further the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of this case. Fed. R. Civ, P. 1.

The Plaintiffs were not required to attach the relevant documents to the RFAs. Rule 36 says that when a party asks for an admission about the genuineness of a document, the request “must be accompanied by a copy of the document, unless it is, or has been, otherwise furnished or made available for inspection and copying.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(2) (emphasis added). When pressed by the Court, the Individual Defendants conceded that — with four limited exceptions — all of the documents referenced in Exhibit A had been provided to them in discovery. ECF No. 3345. Given that concession, this objection is not only meritless, it is frivolous. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), 26(g).

All Individual Defendants except Mr. Tsacalis object that the RFAs are overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent that they require the Individual Defendants to authenticate or date documents they did not produce. ECF Nos. 3298-3 (Keiser); 3298-4 at 7, 9 (Kistinger); 3298-6 at 6, 8 (Ordman); 3298-5 at 5 (Olson); 3338-1 at 6 (Freidheim). This objection is overruled. There is no categorical reason why a person could not authenticate or date a document produced by someone else. The Federal Rules of Evidence specifically contemplate it. See, e.g., Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1) (witness with knowledge); (b)(2) (nonexpert handwriting opinion); (b)(9) (evidence about a process or system).

*6 The Agency RFA asks for admissions that the documents listed in Exhibit B were “made by Chiquita's agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed.” Three of the Individual Defendants object “on the ground that it seeks admissions with respect to Chiquita's agents or employees, not [the Individual Defendant's], contrary to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D). ECF No. 3298-6 at 7 (Ordman), ECF No. 3298-5 at 7 (Olson), ECF No. 3338-1 at 7 (Freidheim).

This objection is overruled. Rule 801(d)(2)(D) controls the evidentiary admissibility of a statement by an agent within the scope of the agency. It says nothing about how a party can prove the evidence's admissibility, nor does it limit discovery attempting to prove the proper evidentiary foundation. A third party with adequate knowledge theoretically can provide competent evidence about the agency relationship.

All Individual Defendants argue that the 2018 Protective Order excuses the Individual Defendants from responding to these RFAs. ECF Nos. 3298-3 at 7-9 (Keiser), 3298-4 at 7-8 (Kistinger), 3298-5 at 6-7 (Olson), 3298-6 at 6-8 (Ordman), 3298-7 at 5-6 (Tsacalis), 3338-1 at 6-8 (Freidheim). As I explained in the Chiquita RFA Order, the 2018 Protective Order does not dispose of the issues presented here. ECF No. 3339 at 14.

8. Sheer Volume of RFAs

All Individual Defendants object “to the sheer volume of the requests as unduly burdensome and oppressive.” 3338-1 at 5 (Freidheim); 3298-7 at 4 (Tsacalis); 3298-6 at 5 (Ordman); 3298-3 at 6 (Keiser); accord 3298-4 at 5 (Kistinger) (“sheer volume of the requests for admission [are] overly broad, unduly burdensome and oppressive”). Mr. Kistinger says, “Such volume is patently unreasonable.” 3298-4 at 6. This objection is overruled. See also ECF No. 3339 at 14 (“I do not find that the number of requests, standing alone, creates an undue burden or excessive cost.”). The Individual Defendants have not shown that it would be unduly burdensome for them to review approximately 350 documents. See In re Application of Mesa Power Grp., LLC, 878 F. Supp. 2d 1296, 1306 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (J. Torres) (burden of proof rests on party asserting discovery is unduly burdensome).

The Individual Defendants wrongly say, “Indeed, Plaintiffs have conceded that the documents are too voluminous to be served with the requests for admission by listing only Bates ranges instead.” E.g., 3298-3 at 6. They argue for a false inference. As discussed above, Plaintiffs were not required to re-serve copies of the documents; their listing of Bates ranges complied with Rule 36.

B. Specific Defendants

All of Mr. Keiser's objections have been overruled. Shorn of objections his responses are:

Authenticity RFA: “Mr. Keiser did not collect or produce any of the documents identified in Exhibit A so cannot attest to their authenticity.” ECF No. 3298-3 at 7. This statement asserts that Mr. Keiser can neither admit nor deny authenticity because he did not collect or produce the documents. It is an answer under Rule 36(a)(4). And, even if Mr. Keiser's objections had not been overruled, where a party simultaneously objects to and answers a discovery request, the objections are waived. Thermoset Corp. v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am., 14-60268-CIV, 2014 WL 6473232 at *3 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 18, 2014) (J. Seltzer) (“courts in the Eleventh Circuit have found that ‘whenever an answer accompanies an objection, the objection is deemed waived and the answer, if responsive, stands.’ ”) (collecting cases).

*7 Business Record RFA: “Mr. Keiser objects to this request on the grounds that he lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny whether a document is a ‘Record of Chiquita's Regularly Conducted Business Activity.’ ” This statement is not an objection. It is an answer asserting that Mr. Keiswer can neither admit nor deny the request. It does not, however, provide an explanation why he cannot do so. He shall file an amended answer that corrects this defect.

Agency RFA: “Mr. Keiser objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion regarding agency and employment matters. Mr. Keiser objects to this request on the grounds that he lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny whether a document was ‘made by Chiquita's agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed.’ ” Here, again, the italicized language is an answer. Therefore, assuming the first sentence is a valid objection, it is waived. Thermoset, supra. Mr. Keiser shall amend his answer to this RFA to explain why he cannot affirm or deny the request.

Ancient Document RFA: “Mr. Keiser objects to this request on the grounds that he lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny whether a document was prepared before January 1, 1998, more than 25 years ago.” Again, this is an answer, not an objection, but lacks the explanation required by Rule 36. Mr. Keiser shall amend this response.

All of Mr. Ordman's objections to the Authenticity RFA have been overruled. The motion to compel is granted as to this Request.

Mr. Ordman objects to the Business Record RFA, the Agency RFA, and the Ancient Document RFA on the ground that they seek “information that is not within his knowledge and that he cannot readily obtain through a reasonable inquiry.” ECF No. 3298-6 at 6- 8. He further objects to the Agency RFA on the ground that it is “vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome in that it purports to seek legal conclusions as to who is or is not an ‘agent” of another party and whether conduct purportedly portrayed in documents is or is not within the scope of any such agency.” ECF No. 3298-6 at 7.

I sustain the objection to the Agency RFA because it requires Mr. Ordman to apply a legal definition and would require an unreasonable inquiry to determine whether a particular person fell within that definition.

I overrule the objection to the Business Record RFA and the Ancient Document RFA. Mr. Ordman has not shown that no reasonable inquiry can be conducted, so he is not excused from responding to the RFA on that basis. At a minimum, he can review the documents and respond based on his existing knowledge, if he believes that process would satisfy the requirement of a “reasonable inquiry.” It may be that he then concludes he can neither admit nor deny the RFA. If Mr. Ordman believes that there is no other information that he can reasonably obtain that would supplement his present knowledge, or that he is required to obtain to meet his obligation to conduct a reasonable inquiry, he should say so in his explanation for why he can neither admit nor deny the RFA.

Mr. Ordman shall serve amended answers.

For the Authenticity RFA, Mr. Tsacalis’ remaining objection is that it would be unduly burdensome and oppressive to require him to go through the exercise of determining whether the documents in Exhibit A are authentic “when Chiquita, which produced the documents and has the relevant knowledge and information, has been served with the same request to admit the documents are authentic.” This objection is overruled. As discussed below, he can conduct a reasonable inquiry by, at a minimum, reviewing and considering Chiquita's RFA responses.

*8 For the other RFAs, all of his objections have been overruled. Therefore, the motion to compel is granted. Mr. Tsacalis shall serve amended answers.

In responding to all four RFAs, Mr. Freidheim “incorporate[d] all applicable objections above.” All of those objections are overruled for the reasons stated above.

For the Authenticity RFA, he adopts his deposition testimony for documents shown during the deposition. For the remaining documents, he “directs Plaintiffs to the general and specific objections sets forth above.” Based on the Court's other rulings, the only remaining “objection” is that Mr. Freidheim “objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks information that is not within his knowledge and that he cannot readily obtain through a reasonable inquiry.” This objection is overruled. As discussed below, he can conduct a reasonable inquiry by, at a minimum, reviewing and considering Chiquita's RFA responses.

For the Business Record RFA, the only remaining objection is that the RFA “seeks information that is not within his knowledge and that he cannot readily obtain through a reasonable inquiry, including information relating to the records and activities of other parties or non-parties to this litigation.” This objection is overruled for the same reasons it was overruled for Mr. Ordman. Mr. Freidheim is not excused from, at a minimum, reviewing the documents in question to see if he can admit or deny the request.

For the Agency RFA, the remaining objections are (1) that the RFA “seeks information that is not within his knowledge and that he cannot readily obtain through a reasonable inquiry, including information relating to records, activites, and agency or employment relationships of other parties or non-parties to this litigation [and (2)] that the Request calls for a legal conclusion regarding agency and employment matters.” This second objection is sustained. He is not required to answer the Agency RFA.

For the Ancient Document RFA, the remaining objections are (1) that the RFA “seeks information that is not within his knowledge and that he cannot readily obtain through a reasonable inquiry, including information relating to the timing and origin of documents that he did not prepare or collect.” This objection is overruled for the same reasons it was overruled for Mr. Ordman. He also says, “Furthermore, it is unreasonable to request that Mr. Freidheim authenticate documents for a time period that predates his tenure at Chiquita.” If this last argument is intended to be an objection, it is overruled. There is no categorical reason why Mr. Freidheim could not know whether a pre-existing document is what it purports to be or when that document was created.

For the Authenticity RFA, Mr. Olson objects “on the ground that [the request] seeks information that is not within his knowledge and that he cannot readily obtain through reasonable inquiry. Mr. Olson did not collect or produce any of the Bates-numbered documents identified in Exhibit A in this litigation, and he therefore cannot attest to their authenticity.” [insert cite (emphasis added)]. Mr. Olson partially answered this RFA by incorporating by reference his deposition testimony about certain documents in Exhibit A. For the other documents in that Exhibit, he adopted his “general and specific objections set forth above.”

*9 The italicized language is an answer, not an objection. It asserts that Mr. Olson can neither admit nor deny the authenticity of the documents and explains why. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). This answer waives his remaining objections. The statement that he cannot “attest” to authenticity is unclear. He shall serve an amended answer that clarifies his position, using the correct terms from Rule 36 — admit, deny, neither admit nor deny.

For the Business Record RFA, the Agency RFA, and the Ancient Document RFA, he objects that the request “seeks information that is not within his knowledge and that he cannot readily obtain through a reasonable inquiry.” This objection is overruled for the same reasons it was overruled for Mr. Ordman and Mr. Freidheim. For the Ancient Document RFA, he adds an objection that the term “prepared” is undefined, vague, and ambiguous. This objection is overruled. If he needs further clarification, he should confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel.

For three of the five RFAs, Mr. Kistinger stated several objections, then said, “Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, DENIED.” All objections to these RFAs (Requests 1, 3, and 4) are overruled.[4] Even if they state proper legal objections, those objections are waived. Thermoset, supra. Mr. Kistinger has answered RFAs 1, 3, and 4, so the motion to compel as to these requests is denied.

In response to RFA 2, which asks him to admit the authenticity of the documents in Exhibit A, he adopted his deposition testimony for the documents shown to him during his deposition. For the remaining documents, he objected. The only valid objection was that RFA 2 “seeks information that is not within [Mr. Kistinger's] knowledge and that he cannot readily obtain through reasonable inquiry.” He asserted the same objection to RFA 5, which asked him to admit that the documents listed in Exhibit C were prepared before January 1, 1998. These objetions are overruled for the same reasons they were overruled for other Individual Defendants.

*10 I am ordering all Individual Defendants to amend their responses to the Authenticity RFA. After Chiquita — who everyone agrees produced the documents in Exhibit A — admitted the authenticity of many of these documents, the Court ordered the Individual Defendants to say if they would accept Chiquita's admissions or if they intended to deny the authenticity of these documents notwithstanding Chiquita's admission. ECF No. 3341. The Individual Defendants responded equivocally:

In light of the Court's rulings on their objections, the Individual Defendants must conduct a reasonable inquiry, then respond by either admitting, denying, or explaining why they can neither admit nor deny the authenticity of the documents in Exhibit A. An Individual Defendant would satisfy the “reasonable inquiry” requirement of Rule 36 if he relies on Chiquita's admissions. More specifically, an Individual Defendant is not required to conduct additional investigation into the authenticity of a document in Exhibit A whose authenticity has been admitted by Chiquita so long as the Individual Defendant serves an unconditional amended response stating either (1) he affirmatively adopts Chiquita's admissions or (2) he lacks sufficient information to disagree with Chiquita's admission or to independently admit or deny the request to authenticate those documents.[5]

For the approximately 15 documents whose authenticity Chiquita denied, it is not unduly burdensome to require the Individual Defendants to take a position on whether they can admit or deny authenticity based on their current knowledge and any additional reasonable inquiry that complies with Rule 26(g) and Rule 34(a)(4).

WHEREFORE, it is ordered that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (ECF No. 3298) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Individual Defedants shall serve their amended answers, without further objections, on or before April 6, 2023.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers this 6th day of March, 2023, at West Palm Beach in the Southern District of Florida.