Michael REID, et al. v. DAN YANT, INC. et al 15-CV-2358-SLT-SJB United States District Court, E.D. New York Signed January 19, 2018 Counsel Gabriella D. Palencia, MTA Bus Company, New York, NY, for MTA Bus Company. Bulsara, Sanket J., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 Third party MTA Bus Company (“MTABC”) has moved to quash a Rule 45 subpoena seeking documents and testimony, which was served on December 26, 2017. The motion to quash is denied. MTABC raises a number of bases on which to quash the subpoena; none have merit. MTABC indicates that the requests are vague and overbroad, but it identifies no specific requests that are vague or even what about the requests as a whole are vague. As to overbreadth, MTABC's objection is to the modifier “any and all,” but there is nothing improper about requiring a party to produce all responsive documents in its possession, or any documents in its possession, even if the universe of responsive documents is “voluminous,” as MTABC contends. See 9A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2459 (3d ed. 2017). (“[A] subpoena need not necessarily be quashed because the documents themselves are voluminous and cumbersome and significant difficulty and expense will be involved in producing them.”). MTABC then states that this subpoena is a “blunderbuss demand” for “personal and private information”; but MTABC can choose to redact personal and private information in its production. And in fact, the surety Defendants have agreed MTABC may make information available in that fashion. MTABC then makes a series of conclusory objections, without explanation: that the requests are burdensome and they seek irrelevant information. Again, no explanation is provided. Such conclusory statements are not permissible bases to avoid production obligations. See Refco Grp. Ltd., LLC v. Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P., No. 13-CV-1654, 2014 WL 5420225, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2014) (“The burden of demonstrating relevance is on the party seeking discovery,” but “general and conclusory objections as to relevance, overbreadth, or burden are insufficient to exclude discovery of requested information.”) (quotations omitted). “A party resisting discovery has the burden of showing ‘specifically how, despite the broad and liberal construction afforded [by] the federal discovery rules, each [discovery request or] interrogatory is not relevant or how each question is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive ... submitting affidavits or offering evidence revealing the nature of the burden.’ ” Sky Med. Supply Inc. v. SCS Support Claim Servs., Inc., No. 12-CV-6383, 2017 WL 1133349, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2017) (quotations omitted). No such information has been offered by MTABC. MTABC requests that the subpoena be limited to relevant documents; it has not explained what portions of the requests are for relevant evidence versus those that seek irrelevant information. In any event, “the scope of discovery is not limited to matters that are admissible or relevant to the issues formulated in the case but extends to any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party in the pending action.” 9A Wright & Miller, § 2459; see also Refco Grp. Ltd., 2014 WL 5420225, at *8. MTABC has not shown that the requests are not relevant to the claim or defense of any party in the case. In contrast, the surety Defendants have at least made some claim of relevance—which is borne out by the pleadings in the case—that the documents are necessary to determine what hours were worked by co-defendants, which in turn determines the extent of the surety obligation, if any. *2 Quite separate and apart, MTABC's motion to quash is denied because MTABC failed to serve any objections to the subpoena, as it must do under Rule 45 within 14 days of service of the subpoena. “The failure to serve written objections to a subpoena within the time specified by Rule 45 ... typically constitutes a waiver of such objections.” Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp., 169 F.R.D. 44, 48 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). No objections have been filed with the Court or served on the parties. As such, any objection to the subpoena has been waived. The motion to quash is therefore denied. With respect to the other elements of the alternative relief sought at page 2 of its letter, items (a) through (f), those requests are denied except as follows: (1) MTABC shall have 6 weeks from the date of the order to produce the subpoenaed documents; (2) MTABC may negotiate with the surety Defendants an appropriate extension of time, if necessary, for the document production and/or deposition of the MTABC witness. SO ORDERED.