DEANNA SMITH, Plaintiff, v. SOHAAN DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Florida Corporation, DEEPIKA SINGH, an individual, AMANPREET SINGH, an individual, Defendants Case No. 6:12-cv-1369-Orl-18DAB United States District Court, M.D. Florida Filed August 28, 2013 Baker, David A., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION (Doc. No. 40) FILED: August 1, 2013 THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. No opposition was timely filed. Plaintiff filed suit against Sohaan Development Inc., Deepika Singh and Amanpreet Singh on September 4, 2012, claiming that her former employer, Sohann violated her rights under the overtime and retaliation provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Sohaan counterclaimed for conversion and for Plaintiff’s tortious interference with another former employee. On November 7, 2012, the Court entered an FLSA Scheduling Order (Doc. 15) requiring Sohaan to serve on Plaintiff the time sheets and payroll records during the time period for which Plaintiff claimed unpaid wages. On November 27, 2013, Plaintiff’s attorney served on Defendant’s counsel a letter which expressed concern over the lack of documents produced in response to the FLSA Scheduling Order. Defendants had failed to provide payroll records from Plaintiff’s employment between November 2011 through February 2012, the time period in which Plaintiff’s overtime claims arose. Plaintiff moves to compel her full payroll records from the relevant time period. On April 15, 2013, Plaintiff served Interrogatories and Requests for Production on Sohaan and on May 15, 2013 Sohaan served its Answers to the Interrogatories. Sohaan also served its Response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production On May 23, 2013. Plaintiff now moves to compel more complete responses to four Interrogatories (No. 5, 13, 14, and 18) and unredacted documents and recordings in response to four Requests for Production (No. 2(b), 6, 7, 8). On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed her Motion to Compel seeking to compel Sohaan to provide complete and correct answers to the Interrogatories and produce all unredacted documents. Doc. 40. No response to the Motion has been filed. Motions to compel discovery under Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. See Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Westrope, 730 F.2d 729, 731 (11th Cir. 1984). The overall purpose of discovery under the Federal Rules is to require the disclosure of all relevant information so that the ultimate resolution of disputed issues in any civil action may be based on a full and accurate understanding of the true facts, and therefore embody a fair and just result. See United States v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682 (1958). Discovery is intended to operate with minimal judicial supervision unless a dispute arises and one of the parties files a motion requiring judicial intervention. S.L. Sakansky & Associates, Inc. v. Allied American Adjusting Co. of Florida, LLC, No. 3:05cv708-32MCR, 2007 WL 2010860, *1 (M.D. Fla. Jul. 6, 2007). Furthermore, according to the Middle District guidelines, “[d]iscovery in this district should be practiced with a spirit of cooperation and civility.” Middle District Discovery (2001) at 1. Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows any party to serve on any other party written interrogatories concerning matters within the scope of Federal Rule Civil Procedure 26(b). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34allows a party to serve on any other party a request to produce and permit the requesting party to inspect, copy, test, or sample any designated documents or electronically stored information in party’s possession, custody, or control. FED.R.CIV.P. 34(a). The scope of discovery under Rule 26(b) is broad: “parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” FED. R. CIV. P.26(b)(l) See, e.g., Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507-508 (1947). Rule 26 restricts the scope of discovery to the claims or defenses of the parties, rather than merely the subject matter. Donahay v. Palm Beach Tours & Transp., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 685, 687 (S.D. Fla. 2007). The party resisting discovery bears the burden to demonstrate specifically how the objected-to request is unreasonable or otherwise unduly burdensome. SeeFED.R.CIV.P. 33(b)(4); Gober v. City of Leesburg, 197 F.R.D. 519, 521 (M.D. Fla. 2000) (“The party resisting production of information bears the burden of establishing lack of relevancy or undue burden in supplying the requested information”). To even merit consideration, “an objection must show specifically how a discovery request is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive, by submitting evidence or offering evidence which reveals the nature of the burden.” Coker v. Duke & Co., 177 F.R.D. 682, 686 (M.D. Ala. 1998). Plaintiff contends that Defendant has yet to produce documents responsive to the Court’s FLSA Scheduling Order with “payroll labor analysis” or similar documents for that time period which indicate how much Plaintiff was paid for the hours she worked during the period at issue. The payroll records sought are relevant and Sohaan is ordered to produce them. Plaintiff also moves to compel more complete responses to four Interrogatories, two of which seek information on the alleged conversions for $500 and for $8,000 asserted in Sohaan’s counterclaim. Sohaan responded that the conversions occurred between August 13 and 15, 2012 but the exact time was unknown; the items converted were listed on a “Store Inventory Worksheet” attached to the response. As to any persons or recordings that witnessed the alleged conversions, Defendant answered it was “still developing the facts to make a determination.” However, Plaintiff’s counsel took the deposition of Amanpreet Singh on March 27, 2013 in a separate action pending in state court, and Mr. Singh testified that he had a video of Plaintiff and another employee which provided support to Sohaan’s claims of tortious interference. Mr. Singh testified that the video was maintained on a disc; he was subsequently asked that the disc not be destroyed because it would be requested through the course of discovery. Sohaan has not produced the disc. Sohaan will be required to supplement its responses with any recordings of the alleged conversions, the tortious interference, and the identity of any witnesses. Plaintiff also asked for the identity of those employees similarly situated to her. Doc. 40. She argues that they will have knowledge of the actual hours she worked during her employment with Sohaan as well as its record-keeping practices. In addition, Plaintiff asked for all correspondence between Defendant and her subsequent employer “Otaal 1, Inc.,” a 7-11 franchisor in Melbourne, who fired her shortly after she asserted her FLSA rights. During the Rule 30(b)(6) of Sohaan, Plaintiff learned that a member of Otaal 1, Inc. did contact Sohaan, but no correspondence was produced. Sohaan objected to both Interrogatories and did not provide any information. The identity of other employees similarly situated to Plaintiff, and communications with Otaal, Inc. are also relevant. Sohaan served its Response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production On May 23, 2013. Plaintiff seeks to compel documents related to four of her requests which sought complete wage records for Plaintiff and all documents or recordings related to Sohaan’s counterclaims for conversion and tortious interference. Plaintiff points out that many of the produced documents contain redactions, and argues that Sohaan has attempted to conceal among other things, the identity of potential witnesses, similarly situated employees, and even what appears to be the identity of the individual preparing the Store Inventory Report Worksheet at the heart of Sohaan’s conversion counterclaims. Sohaan has not claimed that this information is privileged, nor have they provided a Privilege Log. On June 21, 2013, after reviewing Sohaan’s responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and the documents produced in response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Plaintiff served a written demand to update or supplement Sohaan’s responses and requested the unredacted documents or a privilege log, but Sohaan did not supplement. Under Rule 26(b)(5), “[w]hen a party withholds information otherwise discoverable by claiming that the information is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material, the party must: (i) expressly make the claim; and (ii) describe the nature of the documents” not produced in a manner that “will enable other parties to assess the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). Though Sohaan redacted the documents produced, it has failed to make any claim of privilege and failed to describe why the information redacted was privileged, and has waived any claim of privilege at this late date. As of the close of discovery on August 1, 2013, Sohaan did not provide updated interrogatory responses, un-redacted documents, or documents responsive to Plaintiff’s requests. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel is GRANTED. Sohaan is ORDERED to serve the unredacted copies of the responsive documents within 7 days of the date of this Order. Sohaan is ORDERED to produce within 7 days of the date of this Order: 1. Plaintiff’s payroll records for the period of time at issue, November 2011 through February 15, 2012. 2. Any recordings of the alleged conversions, the tortious interference, and the identity of any witnesses to the acts alleged in Sohaan’s counterclaims; 3. The identity of other employees similarly situated to Plaintiff during her time of employment; 4. Defendants’ communications with Otaal, Inc. The matter of motion coasts may be revisited at the close of discovery. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on August 28, 2013.