MACSOUTH FOREST PRODUCTS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. CURRENT BUILDERS, INC., et al., Defendants CASE NO. 0:24-CV-60013-BECERRA/AUGUSTIN-BIRCH United States District Court, S.D. Florida Signed April 30, 2024 Counsel Andrew V. Showen, Hill Rugh Keller & Main, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff. Jeffrey Scott Geller, Etcheverry & Harrison LLP, Plantation, FL, Matthew Gordon Davis, Matthew Rothrock, Paskert Divers Thompson, Tampa, FL, for Defendant. John A. Moore, Vincent Francis Vaccarella, Walter William Norton III, Vincent F. Vaccarella, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Defendants. Augustin-Birch, Panayotta, United States Magistrate Judge ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL [DE 33] *1 This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff MacSouth Forest Products, LLC's Motion to Compel. DE 33. Defendants Current Builders, Inc., CB Wall Panels, Inc., and CB Structures Services, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a response, DE 42, and Plaintiff has filed a reply. DE 43. The Court has carefully considered the briefing and the record and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [DE 33]. I. Background As part of the ongoing discovery in this case, Plaintiff served Defendants with requests for production, DE 33-1, and Defendants responded by raising numerous objections to the majority of those requests. DE 33-2. As a result, Plaintiff has filed the present Motion to Compel, asking the Court to overrule Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff's requests for production # 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 14(a), 19–21, 23–25, 27, 29–32, 34–45, 48–50, and 52. DE 33. II. Analysis In their objections to Plaintiff's requests for production, Defendants raise five categories of boilerplate objections: (1) objections based on the requests “not being reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence based upon the pleadings and defenses,” (2) objections based on the requests being “overly broad in time and scope and therefore unduly burdensome,” (3) objections to the requests as being “vague and ambiguous,” (4) objections to the requests as being “not germane to any of the claims or defenses in this litigation,” and (5) objections based on privilege and/or confidential or private information. See, e.g., DE 33-2 at 1, 6, 10, 14. Although Defendants are correct that their objections predate this Court's Order Setting Discovery Procedures at Docket Entry 35, DE 42 at 2 n.1,[1] which does not permit the parties to make boilerplate objections, Defendants’ boilerplate objections were nonetheless improper under the Local Rules and established case law. For example, Local Rule 26.1(e) does not permit boilerplate objections, as it requires objections to “state with specificity all grounds.” See also Guzman v. Irmadan, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 399, 400 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (noting Local Rules do not permit parties to “make nonspecific, boilerplate objections”). Moreover, courts within this district routinely reject boilerplate objections as meaningless. See, e.g., Rivera v. 2K Clevelander, LLC, No. 16-21437-CIV, 2017 WL 5496158, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2017) (“Defendant repeatedly asserts that Plaintiff's discovery requests are ‘irrelevant,’ ‘overbroad,’ ‘ambiguous,’ ‘protected by the work product and/or attorney client privileges,’ or ‘not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.’ Without more information on why Plaintiff's discovery responses are improper, Defendant's objections are meaningless and looked upon with disfavor.”). Some courts even go as far as finding that “boilerplate discovery objections are tantamount to no objection being raised at all and may constitute a waiver of the discovery being sought.” Id. (citing Spencer v. City of Orlando, Fla., No. 615CV345ORL37TBS, 2016 WL 397935, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 2, 2016); Taylor v. Bradshaw, No. 11-80911-CIV, 2014 WL 6459978, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2014)). *2 At this juncture, the Court will not find Defendants’ boilerplate objections to be meaningless and tantamount to no objection being raised at all. Because the discovery deadline is not until January 15, 2025, DE 37 at 2, that leaves ample time for Defendants to amend their objections in accordance with this Court's Order Setting Discovery Procedures, for the parties to confer regarding those amended objections, and for Plaintiff to bring another motion to compel if the parties cannot come to a resolution on the amended objections. Therefore, Defendants shall amend their objections to the requests for production at issue in accordance with this Court's Order Setting Discovery Procedures at Docket Entry 35. In doing so, the Court specifically instructs Defendants to carefully review the level of specificity the Court requires for objections and to review Local Rule 26.1(e)(2) regarding their assertions of privilege. Should Defendants’ amended responses still contain boilerplate objections, the Court could overrule those objections on the ground that they are meaningless. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [DE 33]. The Motion to Compel is granted insofar as Defendants are ordered to amend their responses to certain requests for production but denied insofar as the Court is not overruling any objections at this juncture. Defendants shall amend their responses to Plaintiff's requests for production # 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 14(a), 19–21, 23–25, 27, 29–32, 34–45, 48–50, and 52 within 14 days from the date of this Order. Having decided Plaintiff's Motion to Compel on the briefing, the Court hereby CANCELS the Discovery Hearing set for May 13, 2024, at 11:00 A.M. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 30th day of April, 2024. Footnotes [1] Defendants nevertheless state they can “amend their objections to the extent it would assist the Court in determining the inappropriateness of [Plaintiff's] requests.” Id.